Subject: [sidr] implementation - work for the working group?

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:52:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

There have been two presentations to this working group in past IETF 
meetings suggesting mechanisms for implementations of the BGP route 
decision based on the RPKI.  The first was Ruediger Volk's presentation at 
IETF72 that suggested a way to map ROAs to IRR route objects so as to feed 
into existing operator tools. 
(http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/sidr-6.pdf)  The second was David 
Ward's presentation at IETF75 that suggested a way to use prefix -> origin 
AS maps (possibly produced from ROAs) in the BGP decision process. 
(http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/slides/sidr-8.pdf)

Obviously people are beginning to work on implementations, but we 
presently have no work going on concerning implementation.  So the 
question is - does the wg believe that working on implementations of use 
of the RPKI and ROAs should be a work item for this wg?  That is, should 
the wg produce implementation specs?

--Sandy

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:46:20 +1100

On 11/11/2009, at 5:52 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> decision based on the RPKI.  The first was Ruediger Volk's  
> presentation at IETF72 that suggested a way to map ROAs to IRR route  
> objects so as to feed into existing operator tools. (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/sidr-6.pdf 
> )  The second was David Ward's presentation at IETF75 that suggested  
> a way to use prefix -> origin AS maps (possibly produced from ROAs)  
> in the BGP decision process. (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/slides/sidr-8.pdf 
> )
>
> question is - does the wg believe that working on implementations of  
> use of the RPKI and ROAs should be a work item for this wg?  That  
> is, should the wg produce implementation specs?
>

WG co-chair hat ON

Sandy,

I am assuming your posting is made in the context of a co-chair of  
this working group.

When I read the questions you have posed in your note, the first thing  
I asked myself was: "Isn't this specification of mechanisms within the  
scope of the charter already?" (http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/sidr-charter.html 
) I'd like to briefly explore your question to the WG a little further  
within the particular context of the WG charter, as questions related  
to whether a WG adopts particular work items or not is, conventionally  
for me in any case, equivalently phrased as a WG charter discussion.

I note in particular the following text in the charter: "The SIDR  
working group will develop security mechanisms which fulfill those  
requirements which have been agreed on by the RPSEC working group. In  
developing these mechanisms, the SIDR working group will take  
practical deployability into consideration." and "The SIDR working  
group is charged with the following tasks: [...] Document specific  
routing functionality modules within this
architecture that are designed to address specific secure routing  
requirements as they are determined by the RPSEC Working Group"

I had assumed when reading this charter as an agenda for my efforts in  
co-chairing this WG that the specification of specific mechanisms that  
apply a validation framework to the information that is passed within  
the inter-domain routing environment is already within the scope of  
work for which this WG is chartered. Furthermore, if this WG does not,  
or can not, deliver on this task then the WG would reasonably need to  
provide reasons as to why it was not intending to fulfil this  
particular aspect of its charter.  If your question to the working  
group is motivated by a different interpretation of the current  
charter that specifically precludes such efforts related to the  
specification of such mechanisms it would be extremely helpful to  
understand what particular interpretation you have applied to the SIDR  
charter to reach such a conclusion. It would also be helpful to me as  
a co-chair, and I assume helpful to the members of the WG as well, to  
understand a little more as to your motivation for posing this  
question to the WG, and the implications, as you see it, in terms of  
the chartered activity for this WG if there is some rough consensus  
for, or rough consensus against, the final question you have posed to  
the WG. (As this appears to be a WG charter topic I have included our  
Routing AD into the conversation - I am sure that he will be able to  
provide helpful guidance as appropriate here.)

It is also possible that you could've been saying: "While the WG did  
not have a clear consensus view on adoption of a draft relating to a  
security mechanism in BGP in recent weeks, this WG co-chair like to  
encourage work on implementation of specific mechanisms, and in  
particular would like to encourage the submission of material relating  
to specification of mechanisms that build upon the validation  
framework that is being specified in SIDR." If thats the case then my  
comment is that I found the use of rhetorical questions was far more  
confusing than helpful in conveying such a message.

regards,

    Geoff

    WG co-chair hat ON