[Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 19 May 2021 04:18 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, shares@ndzh.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <162139790336.23186.13446816069868245582@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 21:18:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/alZQHoGUldmalxIo_3l1x6Q96n4>
Subject: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4

[Roman already covered the question about what the "required security"
from 7308 is, so I won't duplicate that]

         The advertisement of the link attribute information defined
   in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
   associated with the existing link attribute information already
   supported in [RFC7752].

This seems like the key point to make in this section, and might be
promoted to appear first.

I do think there is some additional risk (perhaps not significant,
though) in going from original AG to EAG, mostly in the form of the
repeated information in the first 32 bits and risk of skew between them.
It seems that the IESG comments on RFC 7038
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7308/ballot/) included some useful
suggestions for security considerations, but they were not acted on at
that time.  We could still choose to incorporate them now, since the
considerations are basically identical for BGP-LS as for the IGPs that
7038 covered.

[Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker