Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE12130E82 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:17:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 3WegHP1zDreB for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F37B1200B3 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1gz1u8-0004xX-0C; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:17:56 +0000
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:17:55 -0800
Message-ID: <m2d0nd5hos.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZOVBLt6tCrsh9dUZjW54n7t-e4Poqd6+fGZnxgn_yh=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL9jLaZOVBLt6tCrsh9dUZjW54n7t-e4Poqd6+fGZnxgn_yh=Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/_-r0s_I4-OckiHCL-GX47BJhOgU>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:18:00 -0000

i do not understand this draft from an operational/security perspective.
it seems to want to document why the announcement was not marked valid
or invalid.  from an opsec perspective, i really do not care.

as there are a number of reasons the match might not have been made:
peer not configured for validation, prefix in execption list, AS in
excption list, ... will we next enumerate them all?  e.g. for debugging,
i might like to know which of my policies caused the prefix not to be
evaluated.  i am NOT suggesting we go down this rabbit hole.

bottom line: i care if it is valid.  i care if it is invalid.  i do not
care why it could not be marked one or t'other.

randy