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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 25 January 2014 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 564AB1A01DF for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:33:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RANDOM_SURE=0.499, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 5k4bfmI3GVmh for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941DB1A015D for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1W6ygJ-0006TV-IU; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:33:36 +0000
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:33:34 +0900
Message-ID: <m238kcea01.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Wes George <wesley.george@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF07E61E.AF86%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <52D072F6.9030304@ops-netman.net> <52D0A0AC.5040903@ops-netman.net> <CF07E61E.AF86%wesley.george@twcable.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:33:40 -0000

> 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.”
> 
> 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.

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?

> 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

i don't think that is entirely true.  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.

> 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.

i agree.  and i doubt we want "waiting for grow" in a document which is
not ephemeral.

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

easily nuked.

randy