Russ White | 6 Jan 15:37 2007
Picon

Charter and Meeting Agenda


Y'all:

The list has been pretty much down for a while, but we need to bring it
back up again. :-)

For the next IETF, we should probably meet, and go over:

o A new charter. Ours is woefully out of date, and while I've sent
several out, I've not received any response to base sending one to the
IESG on.

o Outstanding drafts.

Towards that end, please take a look at the proposed charter, below.
Anyone who has drafts they would like to present before the Prague
meeting, please let Tony or I know.

Also, anyone who has an outstanding draft, please let me know the
current status, so we can get things updated, and rolling again.

Thanks!

:-)

Russ

==

Proposed Charter:
(Continue reading)

Tony Tauber | 29 Jan 18:17 2007
Picon

Re: Discontiguous Deployment (Show of Hands)....

Hi All,

Sorry for the long snooze.

See the new third sentence below and fourth bullet-point after that.
I feel these are only marginal clarifications on what was contextual
received wisdom within the group.  If there are no grave concerns by
week's end, I'll submit the changes.

Thanks,

Tony
----

3.2.  Incremental deployment

    It will not be feasible to deploy a newly secured BGP protocol
    throughout the public Internet instantaneously.  It also may not be
    possible to deploy a such a protocol to all routers in a large AS at
+  one time.  Any proposed solution MUST support an incremental
+  deployment which will provide some benefit for those who participate.
    Because of this, there are several requirements that any proposed
    mechanism to secure BGP must consider.

    o  A BGP security mechanism MUST enable each BGP speaker to configure
       use of the security mechanism on a per-peer basis.

    o  A BGP security mechanism MUST provide backward compatibility in
       the message formatting, transmission, and processing of routing
       information carried through a mixed security environment.  Message
(Continue reading)

Tony Tauber | 30 Jan 17:00 2007
Picon

Re: Discontiguous Deployment (Show of Hands)....

[ Adding the list back on. ]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>
> Tony, Russ,
>
> Tony Tauber writes:
>
>>   possible to deploy a such a protocol to all routers in a large AS at
>>                      ^^^^^^^^
>
>
> Looks better with the additions.  Note the minor typo above.

Fixed. Thanks.

> Another practical consideration is deployment rollout.

Makes sense.

> This might be a good replacement for your third bullet.
>
> -   o  In an environment where both secured and non-secured systems are
> -      interoperating a mechanism MUST exist for secured systems to
> -      identify whether an originator intended the information to be
> -      secured.
>
>
>   o  In an environment where secured service is in the process of
>      being deplyed a mechanism MUST exist to support a transition
(Continue reading)

Curtis Villamizar | 31 Jan 01:57 2007

Re: Discontiguous Deployment (Show of Hands)....


In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701300746260.14084 <at> m106.maoz.com>
Tony Tauber writes:
>  
> > This might be a good replacement for your third bullet.
> >
> > -   o  In an environment where both secured and non-secured systems are
> > -      interoperating a mechanism MUST exist for secured systems to
> > -      identify whether an originator intended the information to be
> > -      secured.
> >
> >
> >   o  In an environment where secured service is in the process of
> >      being deplyed a mechanism MUST exist to support a transition
> >      free of service interruption.
>  
> I think the original bullet is about something else and still has
> merit, but I like your addition.

Briefly - Yes I agree.

[Aside: This was an email edit problem on my part.  I reread your
third bullet and realized that this was a different point so I didn't
add the + on the addition but forgot to go back and edit the part
above that.  Brain temporarily disconnected from fingers.  Seems to be
reconnected at this point.]

Curtis

Gmane