Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-13's security guarantees

Thanks to David for identifying this problem initially and to everyone else
who contributed to this discussion.

I am happy to update the document to reflect the working group consensus.
My goal is to get a revised version of the document to the working group
sometime late next week (e.g. Oct 17).

- Matt Lepinski

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:

>
> This conversation seems to have come to a close.
>
> The wg chairs see wg consensus as follows:
>
> The problem is real enough to merit a protocol change.
>
> The change is to cover more raw info in the signatures, rather than
> signature chaining only, along the lines of
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07258.html
> (see also the new archiving tool
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/sXUj7lgieri0Wrv5PK5u7PfLtxc).
>
> In addition, maintaining ordering was also noted as important to some
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07261.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07270.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07271.html
>
>
> The authors of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-13 are requested to submit
> a revised version of the draft.
>
> The changes are significant enough that the revised draft will go through
> a wglc, focussed on the changes for this issue, so shorter than normal.
>
> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
>