[Lsvr] Adoption of draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-(signing|ulpc)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 07 May 2020 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3453A0CFB for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DsNGXncxk-G for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 866153A0CFA for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 11:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id w20so7417907ljj.0 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Aa+2EkZBv3PaajUcwaK8Cs5OZ6AzWdknZ6uPJFjpSJI=; b=rGIUZ28AmIF4prbDBqsZDWPTC3KFcV2Owyqjtnk6wOBxLTsWBoAFPBbUSTFlXeGOY4 ea/7B2CjWXam/qaPrU3wmm7CC70Jt623TwByyBIU5tGW1kvd9rf/IJWrHvVPHDLZH5JG 9TJ8pKy5GRh56LkkvajwgSSVNki47+uU5HCD7Bz9kYtKL1Eg7jPBlptykDrS1Ptv0BaX ZuKATOqgtStkLG2jQLR6ZKk6n53JaBDikvAr9UOpUepKd0wcRMjIpYVhpsmd4jomCj4l 3hFF5R2EDRed45VaY0beDMxXJMq0UirGFaNd41K2YcuiaY/AlBF/lV5vuaqY2NEibV4L MWEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Aa+2EkZBv3PaajUcwaK8Cs5OZ6AzWdknZ6uPJFjpSJI=; b=DN59rntybjXPPM3yF7PcmFtDfitrojz0hwXC4FXvwT6mZbK8BBHQ8phyuRuCigAUWc ii44AT9MbIpOYa+Yd8gdc6QhUYCm8csQrjUOGoInbWW8BJ2L5mowaiJcwybBhvQUhDO/ c5OGCk9WOSdW5whDoAdX5cEBclLXDbJ9OBhToFDWj3oeeNVoFpTeUH9SE0fiQPtPjJ1f 7KbHvK45wwkqsZzL+JrsV4sBrFsBQwZZkVJxg0Z3kfvBFfTkNV2FoW6RO7gsTLDRNSEh vP9TYumz40FFWVE8lCFViT0B2T7o5b7j07wLhw8lEda3SVUUjxbxxotDVPUnnIHXll4g Z13w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaWM9XZEptfaGDAMFIj+6L0Nuk3AkZS2JRF63PejKWJHnGN5A4f cbRtF0wFHfXJV71O+H/DljQjYMAbcLtqYyb93dg198jcFTI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypK4cc91ZBsWfua1e3mRVdVzjgLyhmUzbq9v1fl5QyJI4kKMyDlm6gXNYEBNeIcx+g8vHzazdybw7XgWE5juuug=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9785:: with SMTP id y5mr8548428lji.66.1588875715855; Thu, 07 May 2020 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:21:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+p8Dvo37Cm_=Ehj=G+YPmVHUaU7wNzOLCddxV-BRFEBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: lsvr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/pt3ImlYEy7IGYXgQq8X8LuWTaWA>
Subject: [Lsvr] Adoption of draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-(signing|ulpc)
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 18:22:07 -0000


1) Support to adopt draft "draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-*" as LSVR WG document?
Yes -- I support the adoption of BOTH draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing and
I reviewed these documents (ulpc more thoroughly than signing) while
following the IDR BGP autoconfig work.

2) Are there any technical issues with this draft?
Only minor / editorial / opinions...
I *do* think that the last paragraph in Security Considerations of
ulpc should remain as is though,...

"Any keying material in the PDU SHOULD BE salted ad hashed." - "and".

3) Which are current pain-points in the draft requiring additional
content and technical attention?
A: I suspect that there are missing attributes that should be added,
but I cannot think of any critical ones.
B: I'm not 100% sure what the relationship is between this and the IDR
BGP AutoConf work is - this looks like it provides much of the
building blocks that the IDR work might use, but where is the line
between them?
C: It feels like more text is needed around "If a peering address has
been announced as a loopback, a two or three (one or both ends could
be loopbacks) hop
   BGP session will be established. " -- how do I know it is announced
as a loopback? How do I know what route to install to reach the
loopback? etc.

Apologies if these have already been discussed and I missed them...

4) What is missing from this draft?
See above...


I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.