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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

<no-hats>

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
draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc.
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,...

Nit:
"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...

W

-- 
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.
   ---maf