Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-07.txt

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen Kent wrote on 10/16/13 11:08 PM:
>> It goes back to a recurring issue that has happened with the
>> order of these documents, where we’re writing a threats doc and a
>> requirements doc based on an existing design rather than the
>> other around, and are tailoring these documents based on the
>> current design to the exclusion of things deemed out of scope
>> instead of documenting everything and then deciding some of the
>> specific scope items in the requirements/design phase.
> This seems to be the telling issue. You seem to be unhappy with
> the scope of the WG charter, and refuse to accept it as bounding
> for the work that is being performed. Your earlier comment refers
> to the charter as "arbitrary" suggesting an unwillingness to accept
> a charter as a a way to bound the scope of a WG.

I think formally you are absolutely right, Steve. The charter and the
name of the document leave these issues outside the scope. But I see
and agree with the points brought up by Wes. Since the ultimate goal
of the SIDR effort is to secure interdomain routing, a threat analysis
with a wider scope, not constrained by somewhat arbitrary limitation
of the charter, could have been helpful. Not to call for a re-charter,
but rather to put the proposed solutions in the overall security context.

draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats could be that document.

Andrei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJujjIACgkQljz5tZmtij9iDACgsbNtKG8BSh6SNCcXpztL6sap
aFwAniQffoXzmadVE4NFGyY22/OJ76uE
=kMEL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----