Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

From: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:18:57 +0000

Randy,

> while checking the docco, i found
>>> 
>>>   3.14  While the trust level of a route should be determined by the
>>>         BGPsec protocol, local routing preference and policy MUST then
>>>         be applied to best path and other routing decisions.  Such
>>>         mechanisms SHOULD conform with [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].
>>> ...
>>>   3.17  If a BGPsec design makes use of a security infrastructure, that
>>>         infrastructure SHOULD enable each network operator to select
>>>         the entities it will trust when authenticating data in the
>>>         security infrastructure.  See, for example,
>>>         [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].

What about adding that "the connection to this security infrastructure MUST be through a secure channel"?

>>> 
>>> those references would seem to be obe.  dunno what to do with the first,
>>> drop it?  the second might ref lta-use-cases.
>> 
>> losing the last sentence in the first seems ok.  and the second moving
>> to use-cases seems ok to me...
> 
> anyone else have input on this one, well, these two?

Proposed changes sounds good.

r.

> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 18:41:28 +0200

> MUST be through a secure channel"?

connection from what?  mains power?  :)

this is about routers speaking bgpsec.  imiho, it would be ill-adviised
to start down the rat-hole of operational practices of router management
for which there is no proof of termination.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:51:40 -0400

>> MUST be through a secure channel"?

it's done via rcynic and/or rpki-to-rtr, right? depending on where in
the process you are... presuming the process looks like:
  publication-point - gatherer - cache - router
                      (rcynic)     (rcynic)   (rpki-rtr)

and above/before 'publication-point' is 'RIR tomfoolery'

> connection from what?  mains power?  :)

i think roque was referring to the above process...which I think
already includes 'security bits'. (rcynic == CMS, rpki-rtr == AO ||
ssh)

> for which there is no proof of termination.

let's avoid that for now, especially since I think the request is
already taken care of.

If this is all satisfactory, let's get to a WGLC in the next 2 days,
and then see where that leads us?

-chris

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 19:12:34 +0200

>                       (rcynic)     (rcynic)   (rpki-rtr)

apologies to roque.  some external data were indeed what was meant (an
rpki-like thing is an example), and was inteneded by "security
infrastructure."

the authenticity of those data is an issue.  we might say so in sec
cons.

randy

---

From: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 17:14:41 +0000

> for which there is no proof of termination.

I was thinking on the issues we had on origin with adding security for RTR and to better document this requirement early on.

Roque

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:52:36 +0300

funny.  datatracker does not show wglc for this document

randy, trying to time that small fix for roque

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:29:04 -0400

i didn't update the tracker... (i hadn't ever in the past).

Did we circle down on an answer for the leak/persay language that
everyone's happy with? If so I'd like to push out a pub request today.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:38:26 +0300

> i didn't update the tracker... (i hadn't ever in the past).

uh, that is between you and the datawhacker

> everyone's happy with? If so I'd like to push out a pub request today.

as far as i am aware, there is no issue with leak language.  we got past
folk looking up 'per se' in their dictionaries.  the one open issue is

and i am waiting for wglc to close so i can make the hack once.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:46:04 -0400

> and i am waiting for wglc to close so i can make the hack once.

Roque, is the change/text ok? or ?

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:18:32 -0400

On 5/20/14, 10:38 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>  we got past
>folk looking up 'per se' in their dictionaries.

Well not exactly, since that was never the initial problem. I just decided
not to make an issue out of it any further since I seemed to be the only
one expressing the concern.

Wes

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:49:06 -0400

> one expressing the concern.

ok, so we're just holding on roque then?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 22:53:13 +0300

> ok, so we're just holding on roque then?

no.  i know how to deal with that one.  but i do not want to make
multiple updates.  so waiting for wglc to finish (actually, i think
it timed out already), so i can issue one hack.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:59:13 -0400

> it timed out already), so i can issue one hack.

yes, it dragged out waiting on some wording fixes...

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:01:52 -0400

Ok, with an offline (off email?) conversation with one of the authors
I think it's time to call an end to this very long WGLC.

It seems, to me, that all of the comments and questions were dealt
with, and that overall the document is ready to move along to the next
step in the ponderous (though probably shorter than this step)
process.

Thanks for bearing with the process so far...

-chris
co-chair-person

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:59:07 +0300

ok.  i will recover a bit from jet-lag and then hack in a sec cons on
the good issue roque raised.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:14:48 -0400

> the good issue roque raised.

fair enough. When the next rev pops up through the process I'll send a
pub-request to the iesg sausage factory.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 01:07:34 +0900

roque,

how about

6.  Security Considerations

   If an external "security infrastructure" is used, as mentioned in
   Paragraph 9 and Paragraph 17, it is critical that the authenticity
   and integrity of data of such an infrastructure is assured and that
   it its integrity is assured when it is used by BGPsec.

i may tune the grammar in the morning

randy