[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06
Catherine Meadows via Datatracker <email@example.com> Fri, 02 August 2019 20:19 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0902212018B; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Catherine Meadows via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: Catherine Meadows <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 13:19:09 -0700
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 20:19:09 -0000
Reviewer: Catherine Meadows Review result: Not Ready This draft describes describes a modification of BGP Monitoring Protocol to allow it access to the Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information Bases. It already has access to the Adj-RIB-In. According to RFC4271 these are defined as follows: ”The Adj-RIBs-In contains unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the local BGP speaker by its peers" and "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the local speaker’s UPDATE messages.” The procedure by which BMP sends Adj-RIBS-Out is similar to that which by which it sends Adj-RIBS-In. The Security Considerations Section consists of the following statement: It is not believed that this document adds any additional security considerations. This is not enough. First, you need to say additional security considerations beyond what. This can best be done by referencing one or more RFCs. In this case it would be RFC 7854, and perhaps RFC 4271. e.g. This document does not add any additional security considerations beyond those already covered RFC 7854. Secondly, you need to say why it doesn’t introduce any new security considerations. In both Adj-RIBS-In and Out cases the information sent is routing information. Would there be any new security considerations involved in sharing routing information sent in UPDATE messages vs. advertisements? If not, why not?
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-... Catherine Meadows via Datatracker