Re: [sidr] Request for WG Last Call for draft-ietf-sidr-bogons-02.txt and draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-01.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> ie, if you dislike these words, please instead of just knocking down,
> can you help construct?

see wrestling with pigs.  and this is my last go on this for today.

> noting netmask, maxlen, which clearly removed the 'rigorous' -what else
> is wrong with the text?

it does not even say that if there is a roa specifying that A may
announce P, that, in the absence of a roa saying that B may also
announce P, an announcement of P by B should be rejected.

it should. the owner stated their intent.  if they had intended B to
announce, they could and should have said so.  they did not run out of
ink or lack the pen.

in fact, it strangely says the opposite,

"While the presence of a valid ROA that matches the advertisement is a
strong indication that an advertisement matches the authority provided
by the prefix holder to advertise the prefix into the routing system,
the absence of a ROA or the invalidity of a covering ROA does not
provide a conclusive indication that the advertisement has been
undertaken without the address holder's permission ..."

to me that is a whole lot of broken words merely in order to justify boas.

randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr