[sidr] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05.txt> (BGP operations and security) to Best Current Practice

[Sandra Murphy <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as regular ol' member:

The opsec bgp security draft is in IETF last call.

John Scudder made an interesting observation, which looks of interest to this group.

--Sandy, regulär ol' member

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05.txt> (BGP operations and security) to Best Current Practice
> Date: September 8, 2014 5:05:53 PM EDT
> To: "<[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], ietf <[e-mail]>
> 
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:42 AM, The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Operational Security
>> Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG (opsec) to consider the
>> following document:
>> - 'BGP operations and security'
>> <draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05.txt> as Best Current Practice
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2014-09-22. 
> ...
> 
> I happened to notice, in S. 6.1.2.4 (SIDR):
> 
>   o  If an ROA is not found then the prefix SHOULD be accepted but
>      corresponding route SHOULD be given a low preference.
> 
> The draft isn't precise about what's meant by "ROA is not found", but probably it's the same as NotFound in RFC 7115 and 6811. Assuming that's right, I'm curious what the rationale is for giving not-found routes a low preference? By definition, they don't compete with a route that is in any other state -- NotFound basically means there is no ROA that has anything to say about this prefix at all, so all routes for this prefix will be NotFound. 
> 
> The net result is according to the draft's recommendation all routes for the prefix in question will be "accepted but ... given a low preference". The recommendation ends up being mostly harmless, but also not useful. 
> 
> (I say only *mostly* harmless since I guess some operator could be confused into thinking they're more secure than they actually are.)
> 
> Sorry for the late comment.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --John
> 
> P.S.: This shouldn't be construed as a full review of the document, which I haven't done.