Actually, the right thing is to read and comment on: http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-01.txt (BGP Security Requirements) to the RPSEC mailing list <rpsec@ietf.org>. Note that only members can post, so joining if you're not already a member is a good idea. The background is that solutions have been proposed with different sets of presumed requirements. This effort is to distill requirements and then analyze any proposed or future solutions against those requirements. Thanks! Tony On Fri, 27 May 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
IETF just published notes from recent IESG meeting, see http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/nyon-notes.txt
Part of their discussions which I'm quoting below is directly relevant to "soBGP deployment" thread on NANOG: ---------------------------------------------------------- 5.2 BGP SECURITY
There are two proposals -- SBGP and SOBGP (??). One is from the security group and another is from the routing area. Should have a BOF to determine what approach (one, the other or a hybrid) is likely to gain traction with implementers.
At this point, each group is accusing the others of stacking the requirements to support their solution.
Work would be done outside of current IDR WG.
Action in this area is important. We may want to talk to our PR department about how to make sure that governments and others are aware that we are making progress on this.
If we want the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security or any government to help us with this, we need to make it clear what they can do. ----------------------------------------------------------
So if you have thoughts or serious preference on SBGP vs soBGP vs some other solution, I suspect next IETF meeting in Paris or one after that in Vancouver would be place to be to discuss it at the BoF.
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net