[karp] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Sat, 15 March 2014 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DC11A0130; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wf10jJF_6y2Y; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1lp0011.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E4D1A012E; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DB3PRD0210HT001.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.69) by DB3PR07MB059.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.898.11; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:48:23 +0000
Message-ID: <011701cf404c$167fcc40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126ADE36@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <09d601cf3a34$373a1ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:36:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.69]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DBXPR07CA020.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.8.178) To DB3PR07MB059.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.149)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 015114592F
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(51444003)(92566001)(85852003)(97186001)(97336001)(93136001)(92726001)(74366001)(54316002)(74706001)(56776001)(47976001)(47736001)(50986001)(44736004)(49866001)(46102001)(61296002)(56816005)(95666003)(88136002)(90146001)(89996001)(83072002)(47446002)(4396001)(50226001)(31966008)(74662001)(74502001)(84392001)(53806001)(50466002)(74876001)(33646001)(85306002)(76482001)(83322001)(80976001)(19580395003)(81342001)(81542001)(69226001)(87976001)(87266001)(87286001)(42186004)(76796001)(77096001)(76786001)(77156001)(59766001)(77982001)(14496001)(93516002)(23756003)(51856001)(62966002)(95416001)(94946001)(94316002)(93916002)(86362001)(66066001)(80022001)(65816001)(44716002)(79102001)(62236002)(63696002)(47776003)(20776003)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR07MB059; H:DB3PRD0210HT001.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:1E66F255.8F7497F6.4BEF1387.D5E92621.201F1; MLV:nov; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/karp/xJNKeS60Ux7B9XTWocie6OUz7Cc
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: [karp] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:48:35 -0000

At IETF89, I recall CCAMP was asked if it would review the KARP analysis
of LMP and four assented, of which I was one.  I would like any
discussion to take place on an ietf.org list for its archiving and
reliable distribution.  I would be interested to hear the views of the
other three.

My first two thoughts are

- Section 1 seems misdirected.  KARP categorises routing protocols and
one such is TCP point-to-point which encompasses BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP
but notes in RFC6518, RFC6862 that LDP has an unsecured UDP part which
then seems to be neglected.  LMP does not seem to fit any category being
point-to-point over UDP with mandatory security and indeed seems to be
ignored by KARP.  So I think that this section needs reworking.
- Section 2.5 is a paraphrase of parts of s.7 of RFC4204 which seems to
me less clear and less precise - I think that the original text should
be used.

Tom Petch