Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Call for SIDROPS WG Agenda Items

From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:02:53 +0000

>Yes, important notice. I was not aware of this draft. Of course, we should mention it. 
Let's discuss if there is something that is needed to be exported to ASPA-profile or if we need a merge.

>>ggm has pointed out some solid prior art,

>>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-sidr-aao-profile-03

The BGPsec design team had also considered two ideas that parallel ASPA.
At the time, these were aimed at helping stub ASes get on board quickly 
(without requiring them to upgrade to BGPsec),
while still requiring full AS path validation.

(1) Extended RAO -- see Section 6.5.2 (page 26) in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8374 

(2) Proxy Signer Authorization -- see slide 26 in this BGPsec design team presentation: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/04/19/bgpsec-dynamics-oct16_2009.pdf 

These were proposed signed RPKI objects.

Sriram