Subject: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 03:50:58 -0800

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/

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

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new
algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one of referenced documents?

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:40:53 -0500

> On Dec 10, 2016, at 06:50, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think you’re asking why different algorithms are needed to those specified for the rest of the RPKI?  If that’s the case, it’s key/sig size to keep the protocol smaller than if we used RSA/RSA-PSS and that’s covered in RFC 5480.  If you’re asking about why would somebody want to define different algorithms for BGPsec then it's discovered weaknesses, vanity :), etc.

spt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:56:22 +0000

> On 10 Dec 2016, at 12:40, Sean Turner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I think you’re asking why different algorithms are needed to those specified for the rest of the RPKI?  If that’s the case, it’s key/sig size to keep the protocol smaller than if we used RSA/RSA-PSS and that’s covered in RFC 5480.  

Thank you, Sean. Maybe the document should have a sentence on this.

> If you’re asking about why would somebody want to define different algorithms for BGPsec then it's discovered weaknesses, vanity :), etc.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:42:50 -0500

> On Dec 10, 2016, at 08:56, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

Ack - maybe in the last para of s1 we put something like this:

BGPsec uses a different algorithm as compared to the rest of the RPKI to minimize the size of the protocol exchanged between routers [RFC5480].

I’m not wed to this wording though so wordsmithing from the WG is welcome.

spt

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:09:36 -0800

> BGPsec uses a different algorithm as compared to the rest of the RPKI
> to minimize the size of the protocol exchanged between routers
> [RFC5480].

to reduce the size of signed bgpsec updates on the wire.

i still wonder why we are not doing 25519 considering it is the cfrg
recco and all the kool kids have gone that path.

randy