Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG Adoption call for draft-borchert-sidrops-bgpsec-validation-signaling-01 (9/16-9/30)

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 09:28:03 -0700

oliver,

if you can subsume ov-egress and the ix draft from de-cix, go for it.

randy

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:47:57 +0100

> if you can subsume ov-egress and the ix draft from de-cix, go for it.

please don't.

draft-ymbk-sidrops-ov-egress is a good idea and although small in scope, 
is important enough to stand on its own.  It is also unrelated in intent 
to either draft-borchert or validating-bgp-speaker.

draft-borchert is a poor idea because pushing the idea of a signaling 
translation layer at the expense of proper RPKI is a poor idea.  But at 
least the damage is constrained to the single administrative domain of 
an ibgp mesh.

draft-ietf-sidrops-validating-bgp-speaker is a bad idea for a number of 
reasons documented on this WG, but mostly because it can cause invalids 
to be propagated to third parties at the cost of squishing valids or 
unknowns.  This is actively harmful.

Nick

---

From: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 09:53:36 -0700

>> if you can subsume ov-egress and the ix draft from de-cix, go for it.

thanks, nick.  my bad.  i meant ov-signal

randy