Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf- bess-evpn-usage-07

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Jorge,

> [JORGE] hmm... how about this instead:
>
> “The standards produced by the SIDR WG, which address secure route 
> origin authentication (e.g., RFCs 6480-93) and route advertisement 
> security (e.g., RFCs 8205-11) do not apply to the EVPN family, hence 
> they are not relevant to [RFC7432] or this document.”
>
> The reason is because EVPN conveys Ethernet address space but also 
> some other information.
>
First, I'm not sure if the sentence immediately above is intended to be 
part of the text, or if it is a comment to me.  I'm, assuming the 
latter, in which case I think more info would help the reader to 
understand why those RFCs are not applicable. Saying that the RFCs "do 
not apply to the EVPN family" does not seem clear enough, although I 
agree that noting RFC 7432 is a good idea.. How about:

“The standards produced by the SIDR WG address secure route origin 
authentication (e.g., RFCs 6480-93) and route advertisement security 
(e.g., RFCs 8205-11). They protect the integrity and authenticity of IP 
address advertisements and ASN/IP prefix bindings. This document, and 
[RFC7432], use BGP to convey other info, e.g., MAC addresses, and thus 
the protections offered by the SIDR WG RFCs are not applicable in this 
context."

Steve