IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Tue, 20 May 2014 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CC91A022B; Mon, 19 May 2014 18:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gAjUYjPGmnZP; Mon, 19 May 2014 18:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E620C1A021D; Mon, 19 May 2014 18:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:4:2180:300:10::137] ([IPv6:2601:4:2180:300:10::137]) (authenticated bits=0) by puck.nether.net (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4K1Eesi014461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 May 2014 21:14:40 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <AAF0DA78-E619-43E1-8D02-F47504E0AF5F@tcb.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:14:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06310699-D113-4BFB-995E-AC92FDF796B5@puck.nether.net>
References: <CAL9jLabRKA2gezfRdzND1TSYMJO+a_4mVV+M302cLBFTUwYmTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF96AEDB.1B684%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAL9jLaZ9J52Dt5n1Wk2KYTqwzmefGxvq-bRcfMfhWBNwf_6ZGg@mail.gmail.com> <EFD759C6-6F35-4397-A27E-BF1E650663BC@tislabs.com> <34076248-B77A-418F-9ED2-E5A607D39B51@tcb.net> <CD783686-9D5B-4D0B-92CC-3D4ACF1A6D07@puck.nether.net> <AAF0DA78-E619-43E1-8D02-F47504E0AF5F@tcb.net>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/5jXnWkmQw03oCv-M9c8K1mV-U-o
Cc: grow-chairs@ietf.org, "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 01:14:44 -0000

On May 19, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:

> 
> Where else would it be documented?  If the IETF is designing protocols that operators will have to deploy, should this not be here?  I thought that was the point of an “operations” working group?

Not all operational practices are documented at the IETF.  Perhaps that is also an oversight.  I was merely asking this question outloud.

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email