Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics

[neil at domino.org (Neil J. McRae)]

maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?

On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> Neil,
> 
> The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet. 
> 
> -- Jen
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil at domino.org> wrote:
> 
>> Jen,
>> What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
>> 
>> Neil.
>> 
>> On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
>>> clarify the purpose of this group.  Our goal is to assemble a group of
>>> vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and
>>> recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security
>>> solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work).  It
>>> is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and
>>> procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and
>>> presumptuous.  The goal is specifically to identify strategies for
>>> incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the
>>> appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups).  And, while the
>>> SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just
>>> one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group
>>> that is not yet even fully assembled yet.  The working group will debate
>>> and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and
>>> those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
>>> 
>>> <tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll
>>> find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into
>>> operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their
>>> academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
>>> 
>>> -- Jen
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>