IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Wed, 20 April 2016 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E91212E866 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 01:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jZyqQQhcUlC for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 01:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net (mahimahi.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA27812E0FA for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from titi.ripe.net ([193.0.23.11]) by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1asn4X-0003cG-WB; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:01:20 +0200
Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-197.ripe.net) by titi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1asn4X-0004rt-Qn; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:01:17 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <D33C7D23.4547B%rogaglia@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:01:17 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B179E5E-0BB3-401A-B968-3415EB7C5760@ripe.net>
References: <570E8D44.1080208@bbn.com> <04F2C4EA-BF87-45A1-904F-350455D11FDE@apnic.net> <D33C7D23.4547B%rogaglia@cisco.com>
To: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -7.7 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719ed4ad4a9353f674b6791de494c620dc4
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/r7CJs7a6ICrXYnIVFNYD5kDGGsw>
Cc: sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:07:30 -0000

> On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:31, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) <rogaglia@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 with Standard Track.

+1

> 
> The question could have been relevant six years ago and we may not have
> debated it that much then. Today, we are clearly beyond experimental draft
> definition and we do not want to stop people working on the topic.
> 
> Roque
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/04/16 22:20, "sidr on behalf of Geoff Huston" <sidr-bounces@ietf.org
> on behalf of gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 4:17 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I didn't attend the IETF meeting, but I did listen to the Wednesday
>>> SIDR session, at
>>> which the issue was raised as to whether the BGPSec RFC should be
>>> standards track
>>> or experimental.
>>> 
>> 
>> I was in the room, but did not speak to this topic.
>> 
>>> I believe standards track is the right approach here.
>> 
>> I consulted the oracle of RFC2026 and read the following:
>> 
>>  A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
>>  known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
>>  significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
>>  interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
>>  might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
>>  before it advances.
>> 
>> This seems to fit well, including the caveats at the end.
>> 
>> On the other hand:
>> 
>> The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
>>  is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
>>  is published for the general information of the Internet technical
>>  community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
>>  editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
>>  adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
>> 
>> Which seems to fall short.
>> 
>> The exercise of RFC publication of BGPSec is more than archival, and the
>> process
>> has been much more than a cursory exercise of coordination with the SIDR
>> WG. While
>> BGPSec may, or may not, enjoy ubiquitous deployment in tomorrow¹s
>> Internet, that
>> future uncertainty applies to most of the IETF¹s work, and that
>> consideration 
>> should not preclude its publication as a Proposed Standard, as I
>> interpret RFC2026.
>> 
>> Geoff
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list
>> sidr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email