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

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman and Ben,

Thank you very much for the review and comments, mentioning  rfc7308 as a reference in the security section was an error.
Please review draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-19 and let me know whether your comments have been addressed.

Thanks and have a great weekend.

Cheers,
Jeff
On May 19, 2021, 3:04 PM -0700, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> Hi Jeff!
>
> Ben spoke eloquently on my behalf. My thinking is exactly as Ben describes it below ...
>
> Roman
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:12 AM
> > To: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-idr-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Susan Hares
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-
> > 16: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > 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?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >