Re: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07: (with COMMENT)

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 9/15/15, 7:48 AM, "Camilo Cardona" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Camilo:

Hi!

>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>COMMENT:
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I have a non-blocking comment related to the characterization of the
>>unexpected traffic flows (and a nit).
>>Section 6. (Security Considerations)  Throughout the document the
>>unexpected traffic flows were characterized as potential policy
>>violations, not as routing security issues as is done here.  I know that
>>the text has gone around the point of malicious intent (or not) before,
>>but I think that if you¹re going to mention that it could be a "potential
>>routing security issue², then you should say something more about it
>>(even if it is the result of non-malicious intent) ‹ or just leave it at
>>policy violations.
>
><JCC> The security section indeed mentions that the objective of the
>document is security, however, we stopped focusing on that aspect at an
>earlier version. We¹ll correct that part to something along the next
>lines:
>
>OLD: The objective of this document is to inform on this potential
>routing security issue, and analyze ways for operators to defend against
>them.
>NEW: The document informed on the potential routing security issue, and
>analyzed ways for operators to defend against them.

That does not solve the point I was trying to make.

The point is this: this (the sentence above) is the only place in the
draft where an unexpected traffic flow is characterized as a ³potential
routing security issue².  If you¹re going to characterize it that way,
then I think you should explain more: why is is a security issue, what is
the effect, what can be done to avoid it, etc.

You mention that the security focus is no more; that¹s in line with what
Joel wrote (in the thread related to Kathleen¹s comments:

On 9/1/15, 12:11 PM, "iesg on behalf of joel jaeggli"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>We worked pretty hard to keep both the attack terminology out of the
>document and to keep the focus on the non-malicious action of ordinary
>actors. I think it's better that we don't lump that in with malicious
>action of varying varieties.

I fully agree!  You can make the decision, but if it was me, I would just
take the sentence out.

Thanks!

Alvaro.