Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)

"Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> Thu, 05 May 2016 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F1112B078; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com
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 k9v94PcEjob2; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0106.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C1E12D5AA; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=I0x8RqIHGbzFylKHjOol6CeZzZFQp+DQkETwgIp0hfA=; b=lKe7G9FrK5hNqIbyI1bJonSyBzQwv8X6iyjMIb+7S+Firvp5AalCl09IBmrqWXNM5kDMXQhj9oFFfILgASUqvJUOY1Vlm4BJlDUgYztjehXR9ani48U/gD79By4vIZNM+IUp5REvuAfB21e9O5AVz1WLy7ApcwKYuA6MraFgCVc=
Received: from BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.151) by BL2PR09MB1122.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.485.9; Thu, 5 May 2016 21:35:20 +0000
Received: from BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.151]) by BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.151]) with mapi id 15.01.0485.011; Thu, 5 May 2016 21:35:20 +0000
From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRpZAlPGhJIIReSUC3LvtKToUrYJ+q3rtw
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 21:35:20 +0000
Message-ID: <BL2PR09MB112351F6C1CBB3A6BB9902B8847C0@BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160503230420.8256.28751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160503230420.8256.28751.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cs.tcd.ie; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cs.tcd.ie; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov;
x-originating-ip: [129.6.140.122]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fabf851d-6177-42fe-2da3-08d3752d28e0
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2PR09MB1122; 5:E3OG4XcK7aO/BWQ/X9ZjI7EdcTc6uyQ+5IPYwf7HMPfnCdZLc83XkCI8w3L1P8J29dErYBgxmMTe+olZjDP75GHHiZyhHPuP2qNg/Mco0DDolgKbOe3ascI5RGQct0n9NTins8rO1KSqCXifvnCJ4g==; 24:1Pswj+Mc+uD49cV4j+iwDfXGSm7m65nMYJB9hxfmqDwX/QywNPn0BaAuVGJw/jd/2Ci2pt/PzOGpmnWGQcESs37DYMJUshJwzeRGs+EzVxU=; 7:iaWWXt7q9E6CqNaRcSB4UUJtzdJpDkkB/e2WNQMwa+0/di1TSMOwbtk6NZ4fWedEvOKdKGY7bRiC1es2U9uKjO3Fp4x140loNY8brixodssDRLIViWbcFCKHx9zY/trDod3OmNoANanrMsywTAUC5n0URKyRuMSiHGMEjvlj4TmraXawoab0N+bhzINoHxjB
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL2PR09MB11227BDA8FF07E18A9152A81847C0@BL2PR09MB1122.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026); SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122;
x-forefront-prvs: 0933E9FD8D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(377454003)(52044002)(5004730100002)(3846002)(102836003)(9686002)(5008740100001)(6116002)(2900100001)(77096005)(33656002)(5001770100001)(2906002)(87936001)(10400500002)(8936002)(3660700001)(2950100001)(5003600100002)(586003)(5002640100001)(230783001)(66066001)(189998001)(4326007)(15975445007)(19580405001)(19580395003)(1220700001)(345774005)(81166005)(99286002)(3280700002)(50986999)(122556002)(54356999)(86362001)(92566002)(76576001)(106116001)(74316001)(76176999)(11100500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR09MB1122; H:BL2PR09MB1123.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 May 2016 21:35:20.2723 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR09MB1122
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/Q-ABmTnmoDK7MXhveiY8VR1Ooh0>
Cc: "draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition@ietf.org>, "grow-chairs@ietf.org" <grow-chairs@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 05 May 2016 21:35:35 -0000

Stephen:

Thank you for your review and comments.
In our off-list discussion, we agreed that using "propagation" in the definition is fine.
Hence, not making any change in the document in regards to this.

Sriram 

-----Original Message-----
From: GROW [mailto:grow-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 7:04 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition@ietf.org; grow-chairs@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Thanks for doing this. The set of references alone seems particularly valuable.

- section 2, does "propagation" in the definition mean that purely faked announcement messages (ignoring RPKI for the moment) that overlap with genuine announcements cannot be considered route-leaks?  From the receiver POV, those would not be distinct. It was probably already suggested but if not, do you think would s/propagation/receipt/ or similar be a little better?