Subject: RE: [Idr] Next revision of AS_HOPCOUNT

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:51:10 -0700

Guys: 

Sorry for the kafka-esque feeling.  

We had agreement 20-30 people the work group on the last draft
that it was useful work.  And no one strongly objected. 

Just floating by the changes to those same parties to make sure we're
still on-track is the goal.  And to make sure new objections don't
get too strong. 

Don't get too bound up in the process. 

If it aids, we can just send a note to all those who agreed previous and
go from there.  I or Tony can do that and publish the results to the
list. 

Cheers,

Sue Hares 
Co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Tony Li
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:42 PM
To: John Leslie
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Next revision of AS_HOPCOUNT

>    Will somebody please own up to telling Tony he may not publish the
> revised draft to the list?

This was the directive of our esteemed chairs.  Apparently this is now
the modus operandi of the IETF when one wants to re-architect
a draft.

>    This is taking on a Kafka-esque feeling that we're expected to
> agree we have consensus on something before we're allowed to find
> out what it is we're consenting to.

I wholeheartedly agree.  Furthermore, I'm trying to play by the rules
as stated, which for those that know me, adds to the surreal
tableau.

;-)

Tony

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:44:35 -0500 (EST)

>That is true.  However, as there are no proposed mechanisms for
>AS_PATH, I don't see much point in arguing about whether the
>not-yet-proposed semantics are sufficient or not.

I know of at least 5, with two of them generalized in the BGP security
requirements draft.  Some of those match semantics you might choose,
some of them do not, depending on what you choose.

>For one example, if an
>AS attaches AS_PATHLIMIT, I would like to know that the AS number
>that it attaches is its AS number and no other.

That's good.  And then there's more to discuss from there.

>As such, I would prefer
>to discuss them as part of RPSEC.

I would recommend starting the discussion now.  The scenario to avoid
is:

idr to security/rpsec: OK, we've done with the draft.  Now tell us how to
                       secure it.
security/rpsec to idr: Oh, we see you made the design choice that is
                       really, really hard to protect.  Too bad.
idr to security/rpsec: Why can't you people ever come up with a deployable
                       security solution!!

--Sandy