maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you? On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" <j...@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" <n...@domino.org> wrote: > >> Jen, >> What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically? >> >> Neil. >> >> On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <j...@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 >>> >> >> >
