From nobody Tue May 18 20:38:40 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A1B3A1BB1; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 sZes_dGjWKiq; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C283A1B8A; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id h9so11911353oih.4; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=bfjCUdNCr+BqlbnrQ4ONmJnUzc6OyeVt6+nI+v6BjXU=; b=lnIgM9xy0+U7lcBQJJ2yzHclV/X6fSFlhybWwNwR6cUJDFFxEtWYqrxFRdMud5Tsu1 GixZdSeLLMc43OanwwRuODga5Rz5EwhAomjvu1fkU1KfkDXQA9m6RrLUp9nwQ3eQy8ZY eGA45N7pMWXodtLp+eUROf9Ppfnlprcy7zkvdzTjLXw4HqdT7hTlkrYUT10JZd75tgO/ /VSvm3lkO6ER2kI9r3gjXCXZ8nyJ5Rb8cYY/OEJhNeO2JM0UTcPiRvw4vu0dXqzPuPNW krW1JwvT8bh1Dsfd8w75GSHjY1Fs5L2fVRXVGt7Y4N04+wnD1g6rxw/xTMzd0N1uguy7 uSXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=bfjCUdNCr+BqlbnrQ4ONmJnUzc6OyeVt6+nI+v6BjXU=; b=KkWmnoOOLhabj0Id+KXB5X1Buy5V4AvULKKMZR5hWIEc8C7v0lSaqzqcxMrkRcbuGf F/kgY506lYXWjFYvdnwBPwP7uIh7WFqt4sfeEHT+NAkQNVG8CrmyoApFnVJsYvPuOSpA AwzYt3KLM7qIvE2UW/HnE0UrEx7fX6MRpuy5ivgC3PdvGd/pjZnFFwH0YpsEyk0lupKA 20R9iaKFxiXnAxZIBqcgD44z63qx4RSzMSlGJqH3aeYEED8rVaGtf6QoQpteWV2iFHqr EkLIHIeNYCYIWc9wTMhNNtkNvMHB9zjDbCXgJCM1ur3iZzqK0f0FvBbJ4Fq1dqcG7lSz Mt4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NN6HXxq9EwpUubVaIy6MYZZK64pGtGpJdMw4g+EQs4ER4S7NM 9ziazDmTOH+w/tauYCQtVgLjiedNPVU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx29NNKn2LLjGUiBe58BWEyZ4yDSb83gPf2RvBaKCYOCZeu1W7B9YNbUXZe7cFPiNf7KN04sg== X-Received: by 2002:aca:34d6:: with SMTP id b205mr6520447oia.151.1621395503961; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.7.234] ([201.147.203.196]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x3sm4252661otj.8.2021.05.18.20.38.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 May 2021 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 22:38:16 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: The IESG , Roman Danyliw Cc: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares , aretana.ietf@gmail.com Message-ID: <3d06050a-4e2d-44c5-873a-0dc3518655e6@Spark> In-Reply-To: <162134343909.18873.6150461240123862844@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <162134343909.18873.6150461240123862844@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 3d06050a-4e2d-44c5-873a-0dc3518655e6@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="60a4882e_7724c67e_b163" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 03:38:38 -0000 --60a4882e_7724c67e_b163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi Roman, Thanks for your review. I see your point, practically, this draft uses=C2=A0=C2=A0BGP-LS (R=46C77= 52) to transport IGP data, and 7752 talks in details about security consi= derations. The security section of R=46C7308 is indeed quite short. Would adding references to security sections of=C2=A0=C2=A0OSP=46v2 (R=46= C 3630), OSP=46v3 (R=46C 5329) and IS-IS (R=46C 5305) work for you=3F Thanks=21 Cheers, Jeff On May 18, 2021, 8:10 AM -0500, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker , 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. (=46eel free to cut th= is > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.ht= ml > 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 =5BR=46C7308=5D= ) in > order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into > BGP-LS. > > The Security Considerations (Section 3) of R=46C7308 reads =22This exte= nsion adds > no new security considerations.=22 What guidance is this sentence provi= ding=3F > > > --60a4882e_7724c67e_b163 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Roman,

Thanks for your review.

I see your point, practically, this draft uses&=23160;&=23160;BGP-LS (R=46= C7752) to transport IGP data, and 7752 talks in details about security co= nsiderations.
The security section of R=46C7308 is indeed quite short.
Would adding references to security sections of&=23160;&=23160;OSP=46v2 (= R=46C 3630), OSP=46v3 (R=46C 5329) and IS-IS (R=46C 5305) work for you=3F=

Thanks=21

Cheers,
Jeff
On May 18, 2021, 8:10 AM -0500, Rom= an Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply=40ietf.org>, 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. (=46eel 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 =5BR=46C7308=5D) = in
order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into
= BGP-LS.

The Security Considerations (Section 3) of R=46C7308 reads =22This extens= ion adds
no new security considerations.=22 What guidance is this sentence providi= ng=3F



--60a4882e_7724c67e_b163--