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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E8D124D68; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5x8X-9bjccYI; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8F31243F3; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1d0e4N-0000At-9m; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:06:07 +0000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:06:05 +0900
Message-ID: <m2vaq1p5oi.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage.all@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06
In-Reply-To: <20170418235858.sgsa64r7b5th7zam@Vurt.local>
References: <149252287543.16134.18005737444773296286@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170418235858.sgsa64r7b5th7zam@Vurt.local>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/itW7o3ZdmzwV9wV9I8hjwifNztw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:06:12 -0000

>> 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.
> 
>> 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?

you're supposed to guess

the normal hack here is

  this document introduces no new security issues beyond those discussed
  in 1997