Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 10 July 2007 15:39 UTC
Return-path: <rpsec-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1I8HoB-0001gJ-SP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:39:23 -0400
Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1I8Ho9-0001g5-MI
for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:39:21 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8Ho9-0001ft-Ay
for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:39:21 -0400
Received: from mx11.bbn.com ([128.33.0.80])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8Hnn-0008FQ-Ve
for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:39:21 -0400
Received: from dhcp89-089-071.bbn.com ([128.89.89.71])
by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>)
id 1I8HnH-0002xs-3g; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:38:27 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240505c2b95577827e@[128.89.89.71]>
In-Reply-To: <20070709142132.GF7635@1-4-5.net>
References: <20070709142132.GF7635@1-4-5.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:38:44 -0400
To: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5d7a7e767f20255fce80fa0b77fb2433
Cc: rpsec@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>,
<mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>,
<mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1222441466=="
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org
Tony, Thanks for updating the requirements document. I see that almost all of my suggested edits were incorporated, but a couple of questions I raised in my comments were not addressed, which leaves some ambiguity. Here are the residual questions/comments: In (new) section 4.2 (Incremental Deployment), the second bullet says: o A BGP security mechanism MUST provide backward compatibility in the message formatting, transmission, and processing of routing information carried through a mixed security environment. Message formatting in a fully secured environment MAY be handled in a non-backward compatible fashion though care must be taken to ensure UPDATES can traverse intermediate routers which don't support the new format. My comment was: One might interpret this to mean that any extended form of UDATE message MUST be transmitted through ASes that are not capable of processing it. This is imposing an unnecessary burden on solutions, since an alternative is to just mot send such messages through ASes than can't make use of them. I'd like to see a clarification of the intent of this bullet, relative to the concern I raised in my comment. The next bullet in the section says: In an environment where both secured and non-secured systems are interoperating a mechanism MUST exist for secured systems to identify whether an originator intended the information to be secured. My questions was: Does this refer to the Origin AS or the neighbor AS? I still think we need to say to which originator this bullet refers. Finally, the last paragraph of (new) section 8 says: An associated delegation criteria is the requirement to allow for non-BGP stub networks. As a result, all secured BGP implementations MUST allow for the contemporaneous origination of a route for a prefix by more than one AS. I had suggested adding the phrase "subject to the authorization criteria above." at the end of the last sentence. I was wondering why you chose to not add this? Steve
_______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
- [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Tony Tauber
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Tony Tauber
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Joe Touch
- RE: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Barry Greene (bgreene)
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Tony Tauber
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Joe Touch
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Joe Touch
- RE: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Barry Greene (bgreene)
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Joe Touch
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Joe Touch
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Michael H. Behringer
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Robert Loomans
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- RE: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 James Ko
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Tony Tauber
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Sandy Murphy
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Russ White
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 tom.petch
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP Security Requirements v08 Stephen Kent