Meeting minutes - SIDRops @ IETF 123
22 July 2025 at 11:30 CEST
Poll on PDU ordering benefits.
Rudiger: What's the behavior of the device if it is not supporting?
Russ: That's the way it is being defined.
Job: Race conditions do exist. WG debate is needed for Pros & Cons.
Russ: You are right.
Luigi: WG members to decide.
Russ: Majority says ordering provides benefits (as per poll conducted in
the room)
Job: Text in the document to be updated.
Luigi: Will continue discussion via mailing list.
Tim: Working on implementation and suggests what error could be avoided.
Sriram: ASPA follows the configuration.
Rudiger: Clear explanation is needed to correctly register. Change
verification to validation as per RFC2828. BGP-Sec does AS Path
Verification.
Sriram: will follow it up
Nan Geng: Egress ASPA Verification draft is included in this draft
Sriram: ingress + OTC confirms what is egress verification requires.
Nan Geng: Not required multiple device co-ordination.
Sriram: Ingress & Egress verification is redundant, but draft does
covers it.
Maria: Configuration of ASPA should be inline with OTC
Michael: Recommendation to have DNSSec
Tim: Sure
Job: There is a draft in IDR, is this draft needed for SIDROPS? Also
don't know what is the best WG.
Russ: Call for adoption for RPKI objects in SIDROPS WG
Sriram: OTC propagation within the AS is not a security issue.
Jia: ASPA records can cross verify the OTC.
Nan Geng: needs some more clarification
Sriram: let's meet and discuss.
Maria: How do you expect the operators to understand and deploy RPA,
where operators are feeling difficulty with ASPA
Sriram: OTC & ASPA can address RPA.
Yangfei: Will respond via email.
Rudiger: Have you done scalability study
Jeff: Check Path Validation in SO-BGP object.
Russ: rest of the drafts can be presented in interim meeting
9) Job Snijders - draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-erik-protocol
10) Zhuotao Liu - draft-wang-sidrops-bgpsec-transition
11) Ziwei Li - draft-li-sidrops-fcbgp-experiment
12) Yu Fu - draft-fu-sidrops-enhanced-slurm-filter