IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Sat, 10 December 2016 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BBD1299DC for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 C1o44KTZb5M1 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F14C91299DE for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id q130so43073669qke.1 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:40:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sN6CiE3BWX/2OQmzZLcdwTFYaSCff/5WwrjjMZWYMtg=; b=XMLZNSlvnZMOFzM6QSDTPRFHMvW28zka1QYEPqX8rvZpPddukxM6VCJDxzITBxPEQ1 I9fdCJ/DwrgEk4mMb0ZZ4p0VW5gKwVZ57iVcqTpkIqoX5MlbGEBDtuyuiEdJgNkvZ/X0 gulVI6C5NB5VjcMAIbfmwXu2XQQuykeFuZ2+I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sN6CiE3BWX/2OQmzZLcdwTFYaSCff/5WwrjjMZWYMtg=; b=mmxCnFasYOdi+aV3BgUQsF8Gs0z0oZ8Uavxw901olvs+t6sRfSGxnUVnb8O1hf5Ryt 8fbxiIUJgY31++9HcL5on7szYRQROQf014O279kGGfQstqah0c8UvpPxMfMsP2sfYwOG kLHU5ocLqL3zeB6mfN2apwgF+m2SV4JGosz3N3EiFrFWDuqQLVNLUfVvhsT1vgXJw9y1 YK5knZlXoetfn8ZJFzpxpC+R7/2y2tGLKruhMZ3xRtSstPvaWCsVfVIQ9MKZMZ+E8pL1 UXd6Tcl+VV3oeps/G0KuMRhwPWlFaWnjMcTjr6+3diQ5yzK8+XxXzDeOgiWC+90Iq/n3 JKWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02yScSmqGZt4ApqmtxVOdSIDDTuwG1dnPzzvuwilHBYUqtWSe1Ve6f0vcFbGk4cXg==
X-Received: by 10.55.189.199 with SMTP id n190mr82861241qkf.139.1481373656096; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.0.92] (pool-173-73-120-80.washdc.east.verizon.net. [173.73.120.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d78sm22036507qkg.49.2016.12.10.04.40.55 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 04:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <148137065859.3698.8955088480248952167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:40:53 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0A3548C0-D59D-4232-A6DF-6371395FFFAA@sn3rd.com>
References: <148137065859.3698.8955088480248952167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/fbc797VgCZPw7755KymZhvf9aqs>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs@ietf.org, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:41:00 -0000

> On Dec 10, 2016, at 06:50, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new
> algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one of referenced documents?

I think you’re asking why different algorithms are needed to those specified for the rest of the RPKI?  If that’s the case, it’s key/sig size to keep the protocol smaller than if we used RSA/RSA-PSS and that’s covered in RFC 5480.  If you’re asking about why would somebody want to define different algorithms for BGPsec then it's discovered weaknesses, vanity :), etc.

spt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email