Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

[Tim Shepard <[e-mail]>]

> > How's BTNS coming along?   Will we be seeing BGP over BTNS anytime soon?
> > (I've not been following BTNS too closely recently).
> 
> See the Goals and Milestones at:
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/btns-charter.html


Cool.  But that is only a (partial) answer to my first question.  From
the status of Goals and Milestones on that IETF WG charter page, I
cannot tell if the result of the BTNS WG is something that is
sufficiently far along that "go do BTNS" is a viable alternative to
this "tcpsecure" draft.  Presumably I could read all the drafts that
are there and form my own opnion, but the queue of things that I ought
to read soon is much deeper than what I will be able to read soon.

(For those attempting to follow along... I believe the need that
 triggered this tcpsecure draft was also (one of?) the trigger(s) that
 led to the BTNS WG effort.    This tcpsecure draft is a collection of
 hacks (which appear to solve the problems as we understand them now)
 while the BTNS effort was started in an attempt to solve the problem
 in an architecturally correct and more robust way.)

At some point there's a decision to be made, recommend what's in the
tcpsecure draft, or recommend what BTNS has produced.

So I ask: is BTNS succeeding such that it is a viable alternative to
this tcpsecure draft?

			-Tim Shepard
			 [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm