Re: [GROW] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: (with COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 06:03:42PM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> > From: Smith, Donald [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:13 PM
> > 
>  > I don't see anything around MD5/TCPAO authentication.
> 
> This is correct, but this is really not specific to this document and
> the comment would apply to any information sent over BGP session, and
> probably to most of IDR document extending the protocol with
> additional field or usage.  If there is a need to discuss this all
> IETF document related to BGP, we can indeed add some text. Would the
> following text be ok with you?
> 
> "This document does not change any underlying security issues
> associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism.  Unless a
> transport that provides integrity is used for the BGP session, the
> GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN community may be added or removed by a man in the
> middle. However, the harm would be lower than adding or removing an
> NLRI, or adding a NO_EXPORT or NO_ADVERTISE community. Hence this does
> not constitute a new attack vector. Protection of the TCP session used
> by BGP is discussed in section 5.1 of RFC 7454,  security section of
> [RFC4271] and [RFC4272]."

I think the above is mostly good, but can be trimmed a little bit. The
following is on point and covers aspects relevant to GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN.

    "This document does not change any underlying security issues
    associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Unless a
    transport that provides integrity is used for the BGP session, the
    GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN community may be added or removed by a man in the
    middle."

Kind regards,

Job