Subject: [sidr] Confirming that the last interim reflects working group concensus

From: Matthew Lepinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 22:40:01 -0400

At the interim meeting in Amsterdam, we had a discussion on open issues in
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05.
Here is a link to the slides that I presented at that meeting. (
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/09/29/sidr/slides/slides-interim-2012-sidr-6-1.pdf
)

I would like to confirm on the list that the discussions at the last
interim reflect the consensus of the working group.
In this message, I list for each open issue, my understanding of the sense
of the room in Amsterdam. If you believe that for any of these issues that
I may be misunderstanding the consensus of the working group, please start
a discussion on the list as soon as possible. I am currently working on the
-06 version of the protocol draft, therefore, if you have an objection to
anything in this message, please raise it promptly.

--------------------------------

1.1. In referring to the data that is typically carried in the AS_PATH
attribute, I will a phrase similar to "The sequence of ASes through which
an update passes"

1.2 With regards to transport security, the document will specify "SHOULD"
use transport security to protect BGP sessions. However, the document will
NOT specify (as either a MUST or a SHOULD) and specific transport security
mechanism.