[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 09 October 2014 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73E41A8979 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VH4-MaIR8dP7 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:8:701::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63BF61A8977 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to: mime-version:x-mailer:return-path; bh=+EDceUQgd7bSb9R5EbQEzAKfhdgj0tJtq82+VMDbFCI=; b=WZn/Jkl98v6bFk9fy5+HREAMwReXpF8b1RK7T0yg7pffimPxOoEdNH2qrr94tu0d34AxnvC8sYOru A4bPo8Q4ZoMqsB1s6dATdm0ilQfdqlHr6ZoffS9IEFUIqmUS+rIgNrEpg44L5BcGeyz1fmQ6LpuDIw YsKvZaVMJCgakMXk=
Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.101.249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:03:55 +1000 (EST)
Received: from static-218-39.meetings.nanog.org (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:00:58 +1000
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A004F317-8EBD-4782-8624-E3D4A905B4C1"
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:58:14 +1100
Message-ID: <D5B69C89-DF3E-4677-B0A5-C852EE0CC84A@apnic.net>
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/xnRhHMXvr7HfxA0KSvmerLInilc
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, ip@ipspace.net, jerduran@cisco.com, gert@space.net, draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 02:04:06 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-name-version.txt 
Reviewer: Geoff Huston
Review Date: 9 October
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known 
Intended Status: BCP

Summary: 
	I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.

Comments:
	The document asserts that this document is entirely about BGP operational security. The problem is that this is not the case. The document is unsure whether its about “operational security” or whether it's the "Miss Manners Guide to Proper BGP Etiquette and Style", and the result is a poor pastiche that fails to fulfil either objective. The detail is poorly handled and the selection of topics appears to be somewhat haphazard.
 
	The larger overall issue here is that BGP is used in many contexts and what is appropriate in some contexts is disastrous in others. The document has the highly ambitious objective of attempting to address all security topics related to BGP in all contexts, and it appears that this is just too broad a scope to be able to be addressed is a high quality manner that is focussed on security, that informs the reader of risks and consequences. 

Major Issues:
	There are many issues which this document and the best way to convey them is to use a markup style that clearly associates the comments with the original text. I trust that this pdf attachment conveys these review comments adequately.