Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition (ends: 8/24/2015 - Aug 24)

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

It has been longer than 14 days, apologies for a belated response.

I think that the document is ready to move forward.

My only comment is that it seems that cases 2&3 are sub-cases of 1 and
may also apply to 5,6,7 (i.e. specifics can also be announced in
"lateral" peering). Perhaps it is worth highlighting this fact for
completeness.

Andrei

Christopher Morrow wrote on 10/08/15 19:29:
> Howdy grow folk,
> please consider this a WGLC for:
>   draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition
> 
> Abstract:
>   "A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing
>    system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in
>    recent years.  Frequent incidents that result in significant
>    disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to
>    date we have lacked a common definition of the term.  In this
>    document, we provide a working definition of route leaks, keeping in
>    mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention.
>    Further, we attempt to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different
>    types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet.  We
>    aim to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks
>    that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community
>    as well as the network operator community."
> 
> there have been 3 revisions of this document in the WG, along with 2
> prior to adoption. A new read-through of the document and comments
> prior to sending this along to the IESG would be great!
> 
> Let's get that done in the next 14 days and pass this up the chain for
> further review/comment/process.
> 
> thanks!
> -chris
> (grow-co-chair)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>