Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-03.txt
"Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 08:21 UTC
Return-Path: <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.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 C7F5421F882C for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9fjTKIzJhWz for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3419221F8822 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2U8Lmih011716; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:21:48 -0500
Received: from Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([157.185.80.107]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2U8Ll5v003225; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:21:47 -0500
Received: from HERMES.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([2002:9db9:506b::9db9:506b]) by Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([2002:9db9:506b::9db9:506b]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:47 -0400
From: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHMmCOt1CW4b+qPEkuJdphkZ9jq2pWXZE2AgAREVgCAOHGKgICup3EAgAAQjACAAEXWgIAAU6pD
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:21:46 +0000
Message-ID: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6E0391@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
References: <20111031232022.26304.78773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308E9E3552F@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <6BE70B4B-E585-459D-ACCF-56B6F800E430@kumari.net> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308EE1E84C3@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <CAL9jLaYRi1Uj1g1OXVt9O10ZCWWtoCm646fyqGsYrJkJG99HxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipDYJpWmMpmvdX+Z4AW7cg0QarJbaAmf1JeEBq0rGHiAw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAL9jLaaZ2z+WfXJCgaa2ob71t4Qk_khC12UZrr8XT9OzCEs8FA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaZ2z+WfXJCgaa2ob71t4Qk_khC12UZrr8XT9OzCEs8FA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.185.63.118]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, "sidr@ietf.org list" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-03.txt
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:21:52 -0000
Brian, Chris. The usecases draft was intended to describe origin validation use cases. Route leaks (and other path validation issues) might need their own usecases draft. But I don't think we should add those cases to this draft. --Sandy ________________________________________ From: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [christopher.morrow@gmail.com] on behalf of Christopher Morrow [morrowc.lists@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:21 PM To: Brian Dickson Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi; Chris Morrow; Murphy, Sandra; Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org list Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-03.txt On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the use cases are likely to be informed by protocol design, so even s/informed by protocol design/altered if the protocol design changes/ I'm not sure if the protocol design's going to change the use-cases... you're still going to want to secure a route. (not an important point) > I have a few examples that I can think of, which would necessarily depend <snip> > I'd prefer this to be added to a "raft" of IDs, for which there is no rush > to publish until they are all completed, after which the timing would be > appropriate. I'm not against this, though we've got a document hanging out post WGLC (perhaps it ought to be re-reviewed if the changes were significant... anyway) and we'll have to keep kicking it each 5.5 months to stay 'alive'. (again, not super important, and see below as well) > Here's an example of use-case, which depends on certain assumptions (which > may or may not be appropriate, but which are fodder for discussion): > > Suppose there is an Edge-AS "E", and transit providers to "E", which would > be "X" and "Y". > > Suppose "E" does not do BGPSEC (per se), but wants to have BGPSEC signing > done "for her", by "X" and "Y". > > (Ignore for the moment that the _current_ designs don't support that, that > is an entirely other rat-hole for the moment.) hrm, in: <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-04.txt> section-6 there's discussion of 'only sign your one prefix, do nothing else complex' which fits the model, albeit requiring the end site to run some small number of commands on their device. If they wanted to hand their private key materials to the upstreams they could do the signing, but that seems icky (to me). I don't know that, if implications are understood by the end site and configurations available for use on their side, end-sites would want to hand over control of their IP assets in this way. Running the signing on their side should be simple enough, and low/no-cost. > And publishing something IMHO prematurely, locks the WG into that RFC, > making revising it much harder, than if it were still in-WG and > not-yet-published. I think the authors said something like: "send text" where you think it is fit to be inserted... If other folks want to delay/re-review they need to speak up. Consensus so far was that the document was ready to move along. -chris
- [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-03.txt internet-drafts
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Warren Kumari
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Brian Dickson
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Murphy, Sandra
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Brian Dickson
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Murphy, Sandra
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Sriram, Kotikalapudi
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Brian Dickson
- Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-0… Danny McPherson