Subject: [GROW] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:09:36 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: No Objection

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I see you have some high-level considerations that could encompass the
various security properties that would be expected, but would prefer to
see them spelled out a bit.  For instance, in the first paragraph of the
security considerations section:
"operators may want to be
   circumspect about ingesting contents from external parties"

Wouldn't you want to see integrity protection so that the operators would
have some level of assurance that the source is who they think it is and
that the data has not been tampered.  This might apply to the described
examples where FTP is used to share information.  Authentication would be
helpful here too.

Then, if automation increases, you would also want confidentiality
(session encryption for privacy and security reasons).  C

This this is a summary of current state, this is just a comment.  But I
would think these properties are used in the current state - at least
integrity protection and authentication.  (Security's CIA principle)

Thanks.