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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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?
> >
> >
> >