Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015)

[Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:25 PM, George, Wes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gave this a review, and stumbled across an issue that may not necessarily
> be gating to this draft, but should probably be addressed in some other
> drafts.

…


> 
> Substantive: I had to think through this for a bit to make sure I
> understood why this is true beyond the obvious problem of AS23456 not
> being unique. I think we need some additional words explaining why, though
> I am not sure if it belongs here, in the protocol draft, or in sriram's
> design-choices doc (7.6 is very thin on explanation). I think that this is
> a specific corner case for the more generic case of incremental
> deployment, where a given path has some routers/ASNs that support BGPSec
> and some that do not, and as far as I can tell, incremental deployment
> isn't really discussed as a concept beyond the [non]negotiation of support
> between peers.
> 
> 

Do you think the bgpsec-ops draft is the right place for that discussion?

Sriram’s draft is an individual submission, not a wg draft.  Sriram can put text there if he wants.  But it’s not subject to wg consensus.

—Sandy