Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Mon, 24 April 2017 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293E6131949; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIHSJAdc0_W0; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2C48120227; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493071189; x=1494280789; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=uVMD2P8RDeF8gutqMRNf1xr7/0+jqMbaVUo9crb9L88=; b=ktghEM+VA/ePkPKcamunG7WxVa/zy8uNtAONP2Bd/Gczmf9J0r8R2/lT +syNppVofLWQ4vum3xAxWzdT4kxm3J/ix61DU880rZjsThrbg7HrqyhRi QVSs/Wnw6lJWeLcUpyuCR6owLWVwrP/ozYYspJZANZtIF1l7DKx6M3NUw 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,246,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="237034100"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Apr 2017 21:59:47 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3OLxl4W020575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:59:47 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:59:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:59:47 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Job Snijders <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, Hares Susan <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07
Thread-Index: AQHSutI62HNkeEG8rUet1MjLuMXn26HRf3CAgAOn2YA=
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:59:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20170422101013.4unb4a3ulsq2kueg@Vurt.local>
In-Reply-To: <20170422101013.4unb4a3ulsq2kueg@Vurt.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:59:51 -0000

On 4/22/17, 6:10 AM, "Job Snijders" <> wrote:



> > C5. Section 4. (Error Handling): “Any erroneous or malformed Shutdown
> > Communication received SHOULD be logged for the attention of the
> > operator and then MAY be discarded.”
> > 
> > C5.1. What does “erroneous or malformed” mean?  I guess this is beyond
> > a bad length, but maybe it refers to invalid UTF-8 sequences, or maybe
> > something different.   ??
> Yes, section 2 "A receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8
> sequences." So, what a BGP speaker could do is send a hexdumped version
> of the received data to syslog after something like "printf("%02x",
> *p++);", rather then present that data through usual ways (as UTF-8).

Ok, so “erroneous or malformed” just refers to an “invalid UTF-8 sequence”?  If so, then just say that and don’t leave it up to interpretation.

> > C5.3. Section 2 already talks about reporting the contents -- I’m
> > assuming the logging requirement here is the same (do whatever you
> > want, but syslog SHOULD be used), right?  If so, then how is the
> > handling of the “erroneous or malformed” information different than
> > that of the one that isn’t?
> I envision that in the invalid case one simply logs "received malformed
> shutdown communication", with perhaps a hexdump of what was received,
> and in the normal situation a bgp speaker decodes the string as UTF-8,
> syslogs the result, and perhaps stores it for historic purposes. Do you
> have a suggestion how to clarify?
> perhaps, NEW:
>     """
>     If an erroneous or malformed Shutdown Communication is received, a
>     message indicating this event SHOULD be logged for the attention of
>     the operator.  An erroneous or malformed Shutdown Communication
>     itself MAY be logged in a hexdump format.
>     """

That text seems fine to me.  

> > C6. Section 5. (IANA Considerations) Why do you want the registry to
> > refer to this document?  There’s nothing in this document that
> > modifies or affects the registry, the policies or the assignments… I
> > think that the Updates tag is enough to show the relationship.
> Because 4486 is updated, and 4486 instantiated those entries. I believe
> there is benefit in providing this additional way to show the relation.
> A developer or debugger might go straight to the registry looking for
> just the value mapping, and then be happy to learn that subcode 2 & 4
> could be followed by trailing data which is encoded in a specific way.

That still doesn’t seem needed to me, but I’m happy to let IANA raise a flag if it is an issue for them.

> > C7. Section 6.  (Security Considerations)
> > 
> > C7.1. REQUIRING is not an rfc2119 keyword.  Please work REQUIRED in
> > there instead.
> OK, I got that from RFC 5424, so we might need an errata there.

It looks like we do.

> > C7.3. In the Shepherd’s write-up [2], Sue wrote: “The Security-ADs
> > will look at the ability to send data which indicates specific details
> > regarding an operator or the operator's topology.”  Given that the
> > operator can put anything in the string, it would be nice if you
> > addressed this concern up front (and not wait for the SEC ADs).  Even
> > if the information is being sent to a “trusted” peer, I think Sue
> > raises an interesting point as “confidential” information may be
> > inadvertently sent out.  One way to address this concern may be with
> > guidance to operators and to reaffirm the fact that while the
> > information is sent only one hop away (to your peer), it can be used
> > as the receiver’s discretion.
> > 
> > [2]
> Interesting point. Do you think XMPP, SMTP, NNTP, and SYSLOG, include
> similar clauses? 

I don’t know, did you look? ;-)

All those protocols were standardized before the IAB/IESG acquired a new taste for privacy.  Take a look at rfc6973 and at this short review [3].


> I personally may want to wait for a security AD to
> actually make and argue the point rather then 'preempt' the angle with
> text which borders on legalese.

No need to be too clever when writing this up; all you need is a recognition that secondary use of the data can occur, some recommendations about how to mitigate (by not including too much), and maybe a pointer to rfc6973.

> Following your feedback, we'll post an update shortly.