IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-00.txt

"Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" <dougm@nist.gov> Fri, 09 March 2018 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dougm@nist.gov>
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 CE64412D86B; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:48:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com
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 44EpVqWdstzq; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gcc01-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cy1gcc01on0139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.200.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF16112D82F; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:48:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=h0XHulbxOhxBW+eQLYFdoA4kNb7TLVkeOQzDVG69CIw=; b=AYxpPssgXfeytYpcY6Pc1CTRjdDPyE5jCNK2axSKU/jp5s9utt2lRABRf8LRVjnbdnq4kbUtHY4CSdWd/WfSC6y9keTX4mPKEj+VFXFz8KaeN+J/KqlBDP0pVmoFDCGfKpIDSuAi7phB9w/8tJLD/mXKat8QZcmBWLI9QqnqRPM=
Received: from DM5PR0901MB2504.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.29) by DM5PR0901MB2503.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (52.132.128.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.548.13; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:48:45 +0000
Received: from DM5PR0901MB2504.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e90a:b560:7cee:b834]) by DM5PR0901MB2504.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e90a:b560:7cee:b834%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0548.018; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:48:45 +0000
From: "Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)" <dougm@nist.gov>
To: Stephen Kent <stkent@verizon.net>, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
CC: "sidrops-chairs@ietf.org" <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTtNWhMX8Ii2x000qaqhw9uIvabqPDaEWAgAMAtQCAAP/MAIAAPhaAgABzpAD//7T7AA==
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:48:44 +0000
Message-ID: <C92B14E7-6F48-4627-8887-776C1321E603@nist.gov>
References: <152029076512.12908.14537578849320525718.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR09MB2773819AB3961189CDA9B4D784D90@BYAPR09MB2773.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <074D75CB-7D34-4838-BEAA-88AE5E044F6C@ripe.net> <BYAPR09MB27738385E28497E1EC5B32AD84DE0@BYAPR09MB2773.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <70613650-C8D6-43D9-8643-5694B77BADA9@nist.gov> <5d2afc8e-7f9a-e2bc-fa84-88b943639bd6@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <5d2afc8e-7f9a-e2bc-fa84-88b943639bd6@verizon.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=dougm@nist.gov;
x-originating-ip: [2610:20:6222:140:1c34:dcd2:fc2a:7a0b]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR0901MB2503; 7:ubbdk6uxjrb3Cko2Co3J37IBbP4RCrv+tnH4gyJE5gl6Uoma0O2+t0gqrQl1cZUIt477CRY/M29TavrbcVR/GMyzKPI2ZnratOX2WdQOoT5g/nYNmQrYsFeQWyQrDJDNg6pPoZa7AG9UPQNoQiijidMWP0cc1XcvButw/VGA2rM5t4rkw2U8wE2yq6XTApUrOhHLVrurRnj6xrig575e6zrWHPV+5jPpa/t+iQVy4fA63MG8b42TAh8mLp7U+KIn
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(346002)(396003)(39380400002)(376002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(102836004)(186003)(6246003)(86362001)(2906002)(6512007)(6116002)(6506007)(6486002)(53936002)(2900100001)(316002)(33656002)(229853002)(25786009)(99286004)(4326008)(2950100002)(6436002)(105586002)(82746002)(68736007)(3280700002)(83716003)(97736004)(8656006)(5660300001)(8936002)(8676002)(93886005)(81166006)(81156014)(478600001)(14454004)(46003)(76176011)(36756003)(3660700001)(7736002)(5250100002)(54906003)(106356001)(58126008)(305945005)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR0901MB2503; H:DM5PR0901MB2504.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ba2437d4-1078-4ab5-79dd-08d585dd9f70
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR0901MB2503;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR0901MB2503:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR0901MB25039CD7994B42F8443F8C0BDEDE0@DM5PR0901MB2503.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(88262167912993);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231220)(944501244)(52105095)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DM5PR0901MB2503; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR0901MB2503;
x-forefront-prvs: 0606BBEB39
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nist.gov does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: K6UOwtVAWqPIwwQC4WS4doYeiD5UMX0yzhYWLvUIor/37yRk6K6brxDSEei7W1aIAHfxQHPsS9zVG+df+zp0T20IDTRAdRVVqQE3bbujPSokRfpwymfkKNk2M3uqdyg8hwentDU6Gb5L6Hre4II+lAslNl3x/eDIWs8Q3o4H7UXv+naXQbsgKCC/OADCBWh8rsyhJr4qANFm7vnd8LFQGJcR+IMqh6lC/XpHjeKIdLApNfXaoluOx7E8KIr3UXf6HB0u5pl87vnpYw+AZ2Sxsn3/RBMv32CJF9Oktxkvj9VtMCoPNA3zxbz4Ds46bXezILYtjulE9INr4ZWqUGLUCA==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CF1703FAC751EC4B82EC94D9450CAA9A@namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ba2437d4-1078-4ab5-79dd-08d585dd9f70
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Mar 2018 16:48:45.0445 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR0901MB2503
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/dcqYQp0lt9nJY7Fu68TfwkxCDOs>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:48:50 -0000

Thanks Steve,

You are right that the RFCs below should be referenced also.  Having reviewed them again, nothing I said previously seems to have changed.   AS 0 is at best a suggested usage convention.

The thing I like about the 6483 text is that it makes explicit that ROAs can and will be created beneath an AS 0 ROA (one usage scenario is forcing your customers to issue ROAs before announcing their routes) and that all of this is "by convention".   So while not normative, I though 6483 painted the best picture of the issues we were discussing.

dougm
-- 
DougM at NIST
 
On 3/9/18, 11:17 AM, "Stephen Kent" <stkent@verizon.net> wrote:

    Doug,
    
    > Maybe another way to phrase this is, as far as we can tell (sec 4, RFC6483) the documented use of AS0 is a usage convention at best, i.e. does not have any specific normative requirements, beyond normal ROA / validation procedures.
    Since 6483 is informational,  nothing it says is normative. However, 
    RFCs 6491, 7606, and 7607 are standards track and the more relevant 
    documents. Why did you not cite those RFCs and their (normative) 
    statements for how AS 0 is to be treated in the RPKI context?
    
    Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email