IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 08 July 2014 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85F21B2A2D for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 DPj8g-Kw9VCS for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nx-mailgw.apnic.net (nx-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:801::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8676A1B2A25 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=HdjULzbD6OFU7kzUOi5PYnYsHxLcuyYLcxeNEY4X6EQ=; b=pCf/IUnxkXVnBg370yGkNZ3DZj7Uqtz2itk6nrM/b4CGKGuJsPHnOpbJawp5e94jyDRLHI7N8HceU Urea2g/Mms4Z2mf/uJ6S+vHHvDFrtjIDFgPJ4DDKH8PHG+LpOt8l9JiFHVA0EOKTK5gD81iL8TjD/K uZvQKT2RczX3BtxQ=
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.101.249]) by nx-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:49:37 +1000 (EST)
Received: from [10.1.3.132] (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 14:49:32 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <FD21BCCD-5E5C-4CAE-9898-792706FD91BF@tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:49:30 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6BF5F265-36EB-4D81-B12E-7207147266D3@apnic.net>
References: <20140702153455.10414.45146.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0CA71605-C46F-4BAE-9646-1AB287549CF8@ieca.com> <0AD801E2-D37B-432C-91FE-7983235468A4@apnic.net> <CANTg3aAga4JsD93yR5uxkWELDiZqQduLLyUtu-MzwkEKcRrPCA@mail.gmail.com> <A435E54D-5CCD-4204-9738-5BA5CE1EF7DE@apnic.net> <CANTg3aBHmHgYC8aabXdszWT5XLTZRpHxXS3GZ9sbCzs+BvroKg@mail.gmail.com> <586E1AFE-895F-40AB-A101-271F07774FA6@apnic.net> <FD21BCCD-5E5C-4CAE-9898-792706FD91BF@tislabs.com>
To: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/x4RlS06OW-hOmAPI7j2xpp9mgpg
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-07.txt
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 04:49:37 -0000

well I would like to understand why there appears to be two parallel efforts
to update RFC6485, and it was I suppose a question that is correctly passed
to the chairs, given that the chairs wanted rfc6485bis produced, and
I assume that the chairs similarly approved the WG adoption of bgpsec-algs.

The original desire was to isolate the structure and framework from the crypto,
which is why RFC6485 was produced in the first place, but now it appears that we
are fragmenting this and producing multiple crypto profiles.


Geoff


(I was told recently that the DNS specs now span a few hundred RFCs. For a widely deployed
active protocol I can kinda see that, but I'm not sure that there is merit in SIDR at this
point in time to take this same quantity of RFCs as an objective! :-) )







On 8 Jul 2014, at 9:42 am, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> the header of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-08 says:
>>   "Updates: 6485 (if approved) "
>> 
>> 
>> so I'm still confused about the two 6485 update drafts.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So your original question was:
> 
>> 
>> Whats the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis?
> 
> So you want to know if bgpsec-algs is updating the original RFC6485 or updating rfc6485bis?
> 
> --Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email