[Idr] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: (with COMMENT)

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deb,

I clarified the text in v37. Pls take a look.

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-37

Thanks
Kaliraj



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 4:08 AM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Balaji Rajagopalan <[e-mail]>, Reshma Das <[e-mail]>, Rajesh M <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: (with COMMENT)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Thanks for that.  Will you be clarifying that in the draft?

Deb

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:26 PM Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Deb, thanks for the review. Please find responses inline KV>

Thanks
Kaliraj



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 6:12 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Balaji Rajagopalan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Reshma Das <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Rajesh M <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: (with COMMENT)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DgN8AvWntJClDUOVnJZLNgBrJ-CFph0kE1Wq57EnDz-GsXqJTesEE418ds2UWpvhCpAeYW_cpGYuyhs$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DgN8AvWntJClDUOVnJZLNgBrJ-CFph0kE1Wq57EnDz-GsXqJTesEE418ds2UWpvhCpAeYW_cpGYuyhs$>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DgN8AvWntJClDUOVnJZLNgBrJ-CFph0kE1Wq57EnDz-GsXqJTesEE418ds2UWpvhCpAeYW_cyd7omV8$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DgN8AvWntJClDUOVnJZLNgBrJ-CFph0kE1Wq57EnDz-GsXqJTesEE418ds2UWpvhCpAeYW_cyd7omV8$>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Magnus Nyström for his three secdir reviews.

Section 14, para 1:  The 'walled garden' approach is not mentioned anywhere
else in the draft.  From the Yoav Nir's secdir review of the idr-bgp-car draft
(where similar language was removed):
KV> The walled garden is by virtue of using a new BGP Address-family (SAFI 76).
KV> These routes stay in the part of network where the new address family is negotiated, and don’t leak out into the Internet, for e.g.
KV> That is what we meant by walled garden.

    " a) Does the security text provide an adequate description of the formation
     of the "walled garden" via BGP TCP security, address considerations,
     preventing DOS service attacks, and strong BGP security (BGP origin and
     BGPsec).
KV> It is by using a new address-family, and following RFC-8212 on EBGP boundaries.

     b) does the security text provide an adequate description of how to detect
     if traffic goes outside of the "walled garden"? "
KV> By controlling the propagation of SAFI-76 routes, the traffic is kept confined to intended scope.
KV> If routes are not accepted from a peer, traffic is not sent to the peer. So it is a control-plane level detection.
KV> Thanks.