IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 08:55 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 5CDA7131585; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:55:14 -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 lXUOhXgiH8BY; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:55:13 -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 6103813158F; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:55:13 -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 1d0lOI-0002pN-OT; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:55:11 +0000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:55:07 +0900
Message-ID: <m237d493pw.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, 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: <1c121aaf-fae7-94ec-71ae-7ac618d86f31@gmail.com>
References: <149252287543.16134.18005737444773296286@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170418235858.sgsa64r7b5th7zam@Vurt.local> <m2vaq1p5oi.wl-randy@psg.com> <1c121aaf-fae7-94ec-71ae-7ac618d86f31@gmail.com>
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/o24BKYaHF-MbosHw99HZ3fCoPTw>
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 08:55:14 -0000

>> 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.

i meant that, instead of being specific, you left it to the authors to
guess what you wanted.

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

no.  bgpsec does not sign over communities.  this is because hops may
validly remove them, thus invalidating signatures.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email