Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff!

Ben spoke eloquently on my behalf.  My thinking is exactly as Ben describes it below ...

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:12 AM
> To: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-idr-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Susan Hares
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-
> 16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> I'm not Roman, but I would have made the same comment.
> 
> I don't think that this is quite a question of "just" adding more references -- the
> -16 currently says that there is some kind of "required security [mechanisms?]"
> from the IGP, and that RFC 7308 specifies how to achieve that level of required
> security.  While RFC 7308 clearly is not a good reference for that, the question
> as to what the "required security [mechanisms?]" is/are remains unanswered.
> Once we know the answer to that, we can give better guidance about what
> references to use and how to write the text using those references.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:38:16PM -0500, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Thanks for your review.
> >
> > I see your point, practically, this draft uses  BGP-LS (RFC7752) to transport
> IGP data, and 7752 talks in details about security considerations.
> > The security section of RFC7308 is indeed quite short.
> > Would adding references to security sections of  OSPFv2 (RFC 3630), OSPFv3
> (RFC 5329) and IS-IS (RFC 5305) work for you?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jeff
> > On May 18, 2021, 8:10 AM -0500, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: No Objection
> > >
> > > 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > COMMENT:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > Per Section 4 (Security Considerations),
> > >
> > > It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV will
> > > support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in
> > > order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into
> > > BGP-LS.
> > >
> > > The Security Considerations (Section 3) of RFC7308 reads "This
> > > extension adds no new security considerations." What guidance is this
> sentence providing?
> > >
> > >
> > >