Subject: [SAVA] Request for SAVA BoF at IETF69 [Was: Re: [Int-area] BOF and WG request cutoff date approaching]

From: fenner at research.att.com (Bill Fenner)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:36:15 -0700

>One of the reasons why I didn't go down [the "cost"] path is that, initially,
>I'd like to see us define the desired functionality/behavior and
>desired result of source validation, and not necessarily the
>specific mechanisms themselves (since some will be vendor and
>implementation-specific).

When I was on the IESG, one of the things that I wanted to be able
to do as input to my decision of whether the WG should be chartered
is have a feeling for the cost/benefit tradeoff of the proposed work.
To give extreme examples, if it provided perfect security at the cost
of halving the forwarding rate, I'd probably push back on it; if the
scheme could be implemented with no cost to any device anywhere I'd
say "absolutely".

Perhaps I'm looking for another bullet in the "Important characteristics
of any solutions" section; #3 mentions a couple of dimensions (throughput
and latency) but there are also considerations like "increases router
cost by 200%" or other harder-to-evaluate measures.

  Bill