Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Fri, 24 January 2014 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09FD1A0493 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 06:57:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 DlF8KfHlaIlY for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 06:57:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7401A0490 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 06:57:10 -0800 (PST)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.11
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,713,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="183235600"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.11]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 24 Jan 2014 09:56:07 -0500
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.79]) by PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.11]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:56:40 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:56:44 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
Thread-Index: Ac8ZFHyt6PtaN5geSLaxh7YvQvqU3A==
Message-ID: <CF07E61E.AF86%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <52D072F6.9030304@ops-netman.net> <52D0A0AC.5040903@ops-netman.net>
In-Reply-To: <52D0A0AC.5040903@ops-netman.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 24 Jan 2014 14:57:12 -0000

I’ve reviewed, it’s mostly ready, minor comments:

I’m not happy with this text in the intro: “issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are
   not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
   document.”

Let me be clear up front, my issue is *not* that these are declared out of
scope, since my comments on the threats document seemed to be interpreted
otherwise.

My issue with this text is the reason it provides as to why they’re
considered out of scope. I don’t think that it’s entirely accurate to
assert that route leaks are not security issues. While not all route leaks
are security issues, some are. It would be more accurate to reflect the
discussion that led us to the conclusion that we can’t secure them because
we don’t know what “them” is yet, and are awaiting GROW to define them in
such a way so that we can evaluate if it’s even possible to secure them in
this framework. That may be a longer discussion that doesn’t belong in the
intro, I don’t know.

Also I think the parenthetical “as are many other things" is unnecessary
and clunky.


Thanks,

Wes


On 1/10/14, 8:38 PM, "Chris Morrow" <morrowc@ops-netman.net> wrote:

>
>Working Group Folken,
>Today starts a WGLC for the subject draft:
>  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs>
>
>Abstract:
>   This document describes requirements for a BGP security protocol
>   design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin AS had the
>   right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the AS Path
>   of the announcement.
>
>Please have a read-through and send comments at the authors +
>sidr@ietf.org mailing list.
>
>This WGLC completes in 1,209,600 seconds, or 20,160 minutes.
>
>Thanks!
>
>-chris
>co-chair
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sidr mailing list
>sidr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.