Detailed gap analysis

[nicorusti]

We decided to omit a detailed gap analysis in the initial version of this draft. Based on IETF feedback in the first interim meeting and at IETF 114, it might not be worthwhile to write a dedicated gap analysis draft. This is because SCION is already there, and it is already designed. A discussion on where the gaps are might not bring too much of a benefit.

We had a list of current Internet issues in this commit that we then removed. This list could be handy for a more thorough motivation & gap analysis.

Also, we have the text below that could be used

For example, as highlighted in {{I-D.rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement}}, achieving reliable inter-domain Internet connectivity remains an open challenge for cloud providers.

  I-D.rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement:
    title: SCION Overview
    date: 2022
    target: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/
    author:
      -
        ins: L. Dunbar
      -
        ins: A. Malis
      -
        ins: C. Jacquenet
      -
        ins: M. Toy
      -
        ins: K. Majumdar
		
		
The relevance of Internet's routing security issues is testified by the fact that these issues now have the attention of policymakers, while previously they were only well known in industry and academia. One example is the 2022 FCC inquiry on routing security {{FCC2022}}.

  FCC2022:
    title: Notice of Inquiry on Secure Internet Routing
    date: 2022
    target: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launches-inquiry-internet-routing-vulnerabilities
    author:
      ins: Federal Communications Commission

IMHO (@nicorusti ), it is worth to incorporate these into the draft.

Also, we will have to improve descriptions of the deployment model, either in this draft, or in the component analysis draft.