Re: [karp] rt-dir review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-table

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A06121F92B2 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tG-E5nkD7oBo for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B286F21F9232 for <karp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1Uf2yG-000M5C-Ng; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:56:25 +0000
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 15:56:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m2fvxffqp5.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <519B99CA.9080307@bbn.com>
References: <tslwqqswm6e.fsf@mit.edu> <519B99CA.9080307@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] rt-dir review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-table
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:56:26 -0000

> More importantly, the RPKI and BGPSEC are not relevant to the key
> table design. The former requires no crypto operations on a
> router. The latter deals with keys for routers, but management of
> these keys is very different, precisely because they are public keys.

that last clause is false.  in bgpsec, the router has at least one
private key so that it can sign announcements.

i am scratching my head on whether a karp table entry could be helpful
in the use of bgpsec keys, and have not found a clear need.  but this
could be my fault.

randy