Re: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C5F1A8B84 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:08:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.926
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 e9thFm5S7-nE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6023A1A8BC4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:06:46 -0800 (PST)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,525,1418101200"; d="scan'208,217";a="649778121"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 05 Feb 2015 15:57:22 -0500
Received: from PRVPEXVS10.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.41]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:46 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:06:43 -0500
Thread-Topic: AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
Thread-Index: AdBBh6X4GfsgwsenSym3rElrQ0uaug==
Message-ID: <D0F944AD.42355%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcCHcogajQjWtLAd7gu-ZtNUGQaPDyRd14YEkh1K4C2KQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcCHcogajQjWtLAd7gu-ZtNUGQaPDyRd14YEkh1K4C2KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0F944AD42355wesleygeorgetwcablecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_xzxNLNfcYpgNa0gnG_VWsh8CNE>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:08:10 -0000

Alia – ack and thank you for the review. Since your comments are more minor on this draft than the SIDR one, I will wait to make those changes when I incorporate any other IETF last call comments.

re: "existing BGP security mechanisms" - I want to make sure that I'm including the specific things you had in mind. Are we just talking about BGP session authentication and/or GTSM, or is there something else that I'm forgetting?

Thanks,

Wes


From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM
To: "draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>>
Cc: Idr <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
Resent-To: <samante@apple.com<mailto:samante@apple.com>>, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com<mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com>>

I have done my standard AD review of this useful and clear draft.

First, I would recommend strengthening the security considerations
with a reference to the existing BGP security mechanisms.

Second, based on a reading of RFC 3967 and how this draft uses the AS
numbers for an example, I believe that the reference should be informative.

Please handle these issues during IETF Last Call.

I'm putting this into IETF Last Call and on the IESG telechat for Feb 19.

Thanks for the good work!
Alia

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.