Subject: [GROW] [WGAC] Working group adoption call: draft-sriram-route-leak-problem-definition

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:23:43 -0500

Howdy grow folks,
During the meeting on Monday Sriram brought up the topic of asking for
working-group adoption for this draft:

  draft-sriram-route-leak-problem-definition

The abstract is:
  " A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing
   system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in
   recent years.  Frequent incidents that result in significant
   disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to
   date we have lacked a common definition of the term.  In this
   document, we provide a working definition of route leaks, keeping in
   mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention.
   Further, we attempt to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different
   types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet.  We
   aim to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks
   that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community
   as well as the network operator community."

Could we have a 2.5wk (so we don't end mid-week losing half a week to
the meeting) adoption thought/vote/discussion for this draft in GROW,
please?

At the mic when asked about this topic there were roughly 20 or so
folk in favor of adoption, and none opposed to that direction.

-chris

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:25:41 -0500

> the meeting) adoption thought/vote/discussion for this draft in GROW,

I was in favor of adoption.  Having consistent terminology for the cases,
even if nothing else comes out of the document, is useful for trying to
address this issue in the long term.

-- Jeff

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:42:45 +0000

> address this issue in the long term.

support.

I guess that's the more sophisticated way of saying "me too", or "+1".

Nick

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:08:19 -0500

Support -- this is an important  bit of work.

Russ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GROW [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:43 PM
> To: Jeffrey Haas; Christopher Morrow
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked] [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [GROW] [WGAC] Working group adoption call: draft-sriram-
> route-leak-problem-definition
> 
> > I was in favor of adoption.  Having consistent terminology for the
> > cases, even if nothing else comes out of the document, is useful for
> > trying to address this issue in the long term.
> 
> support.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:28:42 -0500

Support.  This is important work to address a key systemic issue with BGP.

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: GROW [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:24 PM
To: [email-masked] [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [GROW] [WGAC] Working group adoption call:

Howdy grow folks,

The abstract is:

Could we have a 2.5wk (so we don't end mid-week losing half a week to the
meeting) adoption thought/vote/discussion for this draft in GROW, please?

At the mic when asked about this topic there were roughly 20 or so folk in
favor of adoption, and none opposed to that direction.

-chris