Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Follow-up on discussion on BGP session security draft

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:06:03 -0400 (EDT)

>Strictly speaking the WG is focusing on *protocol* security requirements, ie,
>the BGP protocol specific security stuff. Right now my doc addresses a wider
>scope, namely all the security mechanisms that a BGP speaker should implement

I've made this statement before - we're working on the BGP protocol
security requirements, not the BGP system security requirements.

That statement was meant to forestall discussions of the IRR security
and other definitely outside BGP systems that support BGP (SNMP security?
SSL/TLS connections instead of telnet?, etc.)

But the wg should note that there are some non-BGP-protocol security
requirements in the BGP security requirements document, e.g., logging.

So we're already not strictly keeping with the wg focus.  Whether this
constitutes mission-creep is a job for wg chairs and ADs.

>However, if we are that strict, *nothing* is going to be
>in scope for BGP, not even the bellovin draft

It doesn't matter that the bellovin draft is not in scope for BGP,
as that draft is from the tcpm wg and fits quite nicely with their
charter.  It was with conscious decision that the bellovin draft does not
limit itself to uses with BGP.

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:35:28 -0400

> I agree with the proposition that this work fits within the WG charter,
> provides requirement information above and beyond TCP transport, and I
> support the adoption of this draft as a WG document.

<wg chair hat off>

I agree with this, as well.

:-)

Russ

- --
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone