Subject: [GROW] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 16:10:04 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02: Abstain

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-grow-blackholing/

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

After reading the IETF LC thread on this, I am quite conflicted. I
appreciate that defining this community will make things easier
operationally, but I'm concerned that it will also make it easier to
intentionally or unintentionally cutoff traffic to a destination that is
not suffering a DDoS attack. I don't see the changes from the -00 to the
-02 really helping much in that regard. The change from PS to
informational is not terribly meaningful since the community is being
registered either way and the removal of the bits about IXPs doesn't
mitigate the risks either. If there was a way to authenticate the
attribute I would feel differently, but my understanding is that that is
not currently possible with BGP.

This is far outside my area of expertise so I don't intend to try to
block publication or offer anything in the way of an alternative, but I
also don't feel comfortable supporting the publication of this document.