Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08

["Michael H. Behringer" <[e-mail]>]

[Just back from vacation today, so I missed the earlier discussion.]

Just as a reminder where I was coming from with my draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-01.txt: This was directly taken from a to-do-list from Russ, specifying that the WG needs to work on the point-to-point security requirements of BGP speakers:

At 15:37 06/01/2007, Russ White wrote:
[...]
>o P-2-P security requirements for BGP: This was to provide some cover
>and thinking on the various TCP auth mechanisms to replace MD5 that are
>currently being considered. We need, I believe, a volunteer to
>author/edit this, and get it moving.
[...]

I request (again) that my draft be accepted as a WG item, after all it's taken from the WG's to-do list ;-) 
 
The problem space of draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-01 is significantly smaller than that of draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-08; I can see this work remaining independent, but I can also see it merged with draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-08. My current preference is to keep it standalone, since it's problem space is nicely small and well-defined. But I have no strong views either way. I guess we should discuss this in Chicago. 

BTW, I have received a number of emails with feedback which I have not yet incorporated into the draft, due to time constraints. Apologies for that. Will happen after the IETF. 

See you all next week, 
Michael


At 23:57 13/07/2007, Russ White wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>>> I think so.... I wonder how this overlaps with the p-2-p bgp draft also
>>> being considered?
>> 
>> I don't quite know what you mean by a p-2-p bgp draft.  The behringer
>> draft concerns the security requirements of protecting the bgp peer to
>> bgp peer connection (e.g., TCP MD5).  Perhaps that is what you are
>> talking about?
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-01.txt
>> 
>> Abstract
>> 
>>    The document "BGP security requirements"
>>    (draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-07) specifies general security
>>    requirements for BGP.  However, specific security requirements for
>>    single BGP sessions, i.e., the connection between two BGP peers, are
>>    only touched on briefly in the section "transport layer protection".
>>    This document expands on this particular aspect of BGP security,
>>    defining the security requirements between two BGP peers.
>
>Yes... We should pick this work up as a WG item, I think, because it
>really relates directly to the charter. But, I'll leave it to Tony to
>bring it up at the Chicago meeting (it overlaps with Networkers this
>time, and I really can't skip Networkers, *sigh*.
>
>We should try and see what folks think on list before then, if possible,
>though, I think (?).
>
>:-)
>
>Russ
>
>- --
>[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFGl/UxER27sUhU9OQRAhb4AKDJRU5Emu0HvOTK4IZ1qxQoAk62DgCeKP1P
>vlNLckQ+M00dNx/MrSsDboo=
>=/PTq
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RPSEC mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec


_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec