Subject: Re: [RPSEC] draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:26:47 -0400 (EDT)

>So, to the list: Do we want to try and craft language to talk about
>solutions being noncontiguously deployable, or should the draft remain
>silent on this point?

The document does say that incremental deployment is a requirement.
As I said in my message yesterday, I do not see any realistic plan
for incremental deployment that was NOT noncontinguous.  So I believe
non-contiguous deployment is also a necessity.

This seems so obvious to me that I don't understand why we are asking
the question.

If the necessity for noncontiguous deployment is not as obvious for
others, I would vote for putting the language in.

--Sandy

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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:15:34 -0400

Sandy,

I think the question we are now asking is whether we can make any 
assertions about the security functionality that must provided in the 
context of incremental, non-contiguous deployment.

Steve