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

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

On 1/25/14, 3:33 AM, "Randy Bush" <[e-mail]> wrote:


>hence the "per se," meaining in and of itself.  some cases of pouring
>cement into a router (see london tube) are security issues, some are
>not.
>
>how would you make that more clear?
I think Warren’s suggestion of simply eliminating the assertion about
whether it’s a security issue, per se or otherwise, and just saying that
it’s out of scope is enough for the intro.

> they are announcements of P by A
>to B which are not agreed by all parties concerned (including A, B,
>neighbors of A and B, the originator of P, ...).  the problem lies in
>detecting them, especially from a distance.
So I think that goes back to my suggestion that since you already discuss
intent in 3.22, that might be a place to add something about leaks, either
as a part of that req or a follow-on, because that’s really what you’re
saying here - we understand theoretically what they are, but not how to
detect them such that we could do anything to prevent the undesired ones.

Wes


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.