Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 19/04/2017 00:58, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> ============
>>
>> 5.  Security Considerations
>>
>>     Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP
>>     Operations and Security [RFC7454].
>>
>> SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new
>> SB> considerations, or considerations that are of increased importance?
> It is my understanding that RFC 8092 "BGP Large Communities" are just
> like RFC 1997 "BGP Communities", but ...  larger (for lack of better
> words). Referencing RFC 7454 seems plenteous.
>
> So, what if there are not any additional considerations, If there were,
> they would've been (or are) covered in RFC 8092's security section,
> right?
>
> This is an Internet-Draft targetted for Informational status, I'm not
> sure what you expect here.
I was wondering if there was more scope to make mischief at a distance 
in a less
less obvious way than before.

If everyone is happy that there is no additional risk then I am fine, 
but seems to
me the more knobs you give the mischeif maker to turn the more security 
risks
you have.

>> SB> Is there is text somewhere that discusses the integrity and
>> SB> synchronization of the parameters and any consequences that arise?
> the what now? Can you elaborate on the above?
So you rely on the nodes that receive these community strings to 
interpret them in
a common way. Maybe this is an already solved problem, or an known risk, 
but what
if the dictionaries get out of sync?

>> ===========
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> 2.2.  Action Communities
>>
>>     Action Communities are added as a label to request that a route be
>>     treated in a particular way within an AS.  The operator of the AS
>>     defines a routing policy that adjusts path attributes based on the
>>     community.  For example, the route's propagation characteristics,
>>     the LOCAL_PREF (local preference), the next-hop, or the number of
>>     AS_PATH prepends to be added when it is received or propagated can
>>     be changed.
>>
>> SB> Although these are well known to the target audience, I think you
>> SB> need some references in the above para.
> What reference would you suggest? You feel the section 2.2 text cannot
> stand on its own?
As I said I imagine that all readers will know the definition of 
LOCAL_PREF and
AS_PATH, but normally we give a reference in a documnet like this.

- Stewart