[Sidrops] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05: Discuss

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-sidrops-lta-use-cases/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I’m not sure I really understand the following use case..? Also is
“re-routing to acceptable content” actually a use case we want to endorse in an
RFC? "Alice is responsible for the trusted routing for a large
   organization, commercial or geo-political, in which management
   requests routing engineering to redirect their competitors' prefixes
   to socially acceptable data.

 2) This sentence in the security considerations section uses normative
 language without having the respective disclaimer in the document:
“Hence they MUST be implemented to assure the
   local constraint.”
However, I also don’t understand what such a normative statement is supposed to
say. I’m not sure if local trust actors are the only solution to the stated use
case/problems; if that’s what the sentence tries to say, I disagree, however,
in any case it doesn’t seem to make sense to use normative wording here.

 3) Also, this sentence in the security consideration section, needs probably
 more explanation:
   “Authentication of modification 'recipes' will be needed.”
   What is “will be needed” supposed to mean? How can this be achieved? What
   happens if it’s not implemented?