Notepad for IETF 117

[BasilGuo]

SIDRops

• RISAV should be progressed in IPSECME but reviewed at SIDRops.

[BasilGuo]

SECDISPATCH

1. Eric Rescorla: I have a preliminary question: are there any operators who want to do this? This is interesting to workshop but we need to know whether people want it.
2. Michael Richardson: There are no benefits to end users, other than a lack of spoofed source addresses.
3. SAVI used to be a thing. It had a bunch of downsides. Do those problems apply here?
4. David Schinazi: Talk to the operators, and see what they think.
5. Alex Chernyakhovsky: I think this problem is poorly defined. Users in the deployed AS do not get benefits from it. I don’t think the added encryption is better than the MASQUE tunnel of tunnels.
6. Ted Hardie: If you’re saying only customers large enough to be ISPs can use this, then it’s a very different problem space. I don’t think the use case is written out quite right. For dispatch, go to NANOG or go to ARIN policy list.
7. John Scudder: I’m concerned about deploying this at scale between ASs. The volume of traffic passing between ASs is orders of magnitude greater than in site-to-site IPsec. Also people would not be able to opt into this process.
8. Paul Wouters: There’s a Routing Working Group, SAVNET. If it should be dispatched anywhere it should be dispatched there.

Dispatch Decision: New mailing list, SAVNET possible

[BasilGuo]

IPSECME

Joel Halpern: To SAVNET.