IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 B61DA131585; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 k91G6eHyPaqD; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x243.google.com (mail-wr0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::243]) (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 6E69213158E; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l44so2264420wrc.2; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SFAYnSLEx54i0XkbEkVy9DdmlNHF7h2XeHEkNh/A5Nw=; b=vMLw/BTfm9G+enfXJDe+pOEOSyiZeSvtslYVR68V9FiVzKvQ9WsOxnzTPkzPNdfCTl +bRTS9wr42JFuY4oNcz7d/RQwDFs7UsTJDB6EnTXk1biEx6AgjIodvb0A+5ExfeiD9eX L+NdBgR5C66MxeOxfwDje3tblEONa8s1nEVpLmjQ65NUzQCuL/FM6GuUVgH5xnEU4L44 3cKdsSaYB9ogE/p3dCnw+8/nOHVRSCXGYC2eJ9qLiD2JzuHrUqJOTlHLk33zoWPZq+An 0WBDHo2Jy6HzWzH/PO7iTVsKHLf+MRIBKD4ojUTVKPCbdsoNA1Haa3t9ZBx+hoUwC1DG goRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SFAYnSLEx54i0XkbEkVy9DdmlNHF7h2XeHEkNh/A5Nw=; b=kPSC8DOI3Hd6I9us+uR3VvSFcPt69CcfVpMAoD4ea0sUAL9Ysm6+MgFITDVdKet26w YP5iFUTNdI5cPr8WSHrXYC2Bv3He0dfb9Fe/vE54zXPZUYt4P6iNFt2st6erVr/481DW /mNaRiPToYDhABWymzuoMB+3Pjxgmr4nKKKbCpwS2CLexaJM7BCGKSW3cIfqATS6PetO OOJLQu/wc1RQsLRzzMpuNSdQkC2U2GVU/rfyevaaOYO6c+4DUQTY8+5IuXgKqAccJcHu hyRAyjZzXUBx/i977xHFhsXBBOtwUJa+7NU3YYC3I89i149+OJLCYllKLRIKEGMMaWuD AVdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4PURalyj1gZODNHTrgjxOYAyQwm9S3D8CIpvenoDpOfH56s09C kBt0qr9fa1lYuLZ7rKs=
X-Received: by 10.223.162.152 with SMTP id s24mr1901087wra.27.1492591931635; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.66.4.239] ([131.227.23.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w16sm1486809wmd.0.2017.04.19.01.52.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [GROW] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
References: <149252287543.16134.18005737444773296286@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170418235858.sgsa64r7b5th7zam@Vurt.local> <m2vaq1p5oi.wl-randy@psg.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage.all@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1c121aaf-fae7-94ec-71ae-7ac618d86f31@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:52:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2vaq1p5oi.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mDnU6hWw8NNFs34bvYakMzUpw1I>
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 08:52:16 -0000


On 19/04/2017 02:06, Randy Bush 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.
>>
>>> 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

Guessing is horrible, but if that is what you do, that is what you do, 
and if the risks are the accepted norm in the BGP
community I am fine.

Is corruption (deliberate or otherwise) of the community strings 
something that BGPsec will address?

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email