[sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss 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 ht

[sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss 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 ht

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Ben, Thank you. Please see my response inline below. >>> >>> - 8.4, last paragraph: The text describes a replay attack, and >>> delegates >>> the mitigation solution to. This is an >>> informational reference; it draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover >>> seems like it should be normative. >> >> The

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, >thanks for the very clear clarification. >Not sure if it’s just me or if that’s not clearly stated >in the draft, but maybe it would be worth it double-checking. The draft says the following which covey it (IMO): Section 2.2, p.5 BGP update messages without the BGPsec_Path attribut

[sidr] Review of draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10

Reviewer: Peter Yee Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new v

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the response. I have one remaining comment, below. I removed sections that I think are resolved. Thanks! Ben. On 14 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote: - 8.4, last paragraph: The text describes a replay attack, and delegates the mitigation solution to. This

[sidr] Last Call: (RPKI Repository Delta Protocol) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'RPKI Repository Delta Protocol' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantiv

[sidr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: Discuss 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 h

Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-05.txt

[Oleg: Thanks for the update!] Dear WG: One of the significant changes in this version is an Update to RFC6480, RFC6481, and RFC7730, in order to remove the normative dependency on rsync as needed in every deployment. Please take a close look at the new text in Section 4. Thanks! Alvaro.

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

ACK On 1/17/17, 10:52 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net>> wrote: thanks for the very clear clarification. Not sure if it’s just me or if that’s not clearly stated in the draft, but maybe it would be worth it double-checking. ___

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro, thanks for the very clear clarification. Not sure if it’s just me or if that’s not clearly stated in the draft, but maybe it would be worth it double-checking. Mirja > Am 17.01.2017 um 16:47 schrieb Alvaro Retana (aretana) : > > Mirja: > > Hi! > > If an AS in the path doesn’t s

Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol

Sriram: Hi! Yes, I think I may have read more into Keyur’s comment than what he was asking for, so I think we’re ready to go. ☺ I’ll approve publication. Thanks!! Alvaro. On 1/16/17, 10:10 PM, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov>> wrote: Hi Alvaro, ... snip ..

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Mirja: Hi! If an AS in the path doesn’t support BGPsec, then BGP goes back to “normal” mode (as in before BGPsec), and the assurance that the “update propagated via the sequence of ASes listed” is lost. In other words, from the origin AS to the AS before the one not supporting BGPsec, we can

[sidr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss 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 http

[sidr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss 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 http

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Sriram, thanks for your reply. That’s all fine. I really didn’t expect any protocol changes at this late stage of the draft but wanted at least to know if these points were previously discussed. Also happy to see that some parts where discussed with Ross. One final question (related to poin