Re: [Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-30

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

> was this meant to say "existing BGPsec solutions" or "the existing BGP solution"?

I think we should change it to ‘existing BGP solutions’. Agree.

Thanks,
Kaliraj



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Magnus Nyström via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, April 7, 2024 at 10:17 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-30
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Reviewer: Magnus Nyström
Review result: Has Nits

Comparing with my original review (-18) the authors have addressed my concerns.
There is one remaining, probably smaller, issue: The Security Considerations
section states: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from
its intended destination, existing BGPsec solution could be extended and
supported for this SAFI." - was this meant to say "existing BGPsec solutions"
or "the existing BGP solution"? Also, it isn't clear how BGPsec should be
extended - and if it would provide any substantial benefit over the mechanisms
described herein (the remainder of this paragraph states: "The restriction of
the aplicability of this SAFI to its intended well-defined scope limits the
likelihood of traffic diversions. Furthermore, as long as the filtering and
appropriate configuration mechanisms discussed previously are applied
diligently, risk of the diversion of the traffic is significantly mitigated.").


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B2BvMqPMR2r1KICWj3Vip_HLeDU5abmgtAXxyMwbmZhtzxUlyiprfSYhkYvbMBSGgTiBOIH3LSaGNns$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B2BvMqPMR2r1KICWj3Vip_HLeDU5abmgtAXxyMwbmZhtzxUlyiprfSYhkYvbMBSGgTiBOIH3LSaGNns$>