On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM, George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote: > I’ve reviewed, it’s mostly ready, minor comments: > > I’m not happy with this text in the intro: “issues of business > relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset, > while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are > not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this > document.” >
Would simply: "issues of business relationship conformance (of which routing 'leaks' are a subset), while important to operators, are outside the scope of this document.” cover things well enough? > Let me be clear up front, my issue is *not* that these are declared out of > scope, since my comments on the threats document seemed to be interpreted > otherwise. > > My issue with this text is the reason it provides as to why they’re > considered out of scope. I don’t think that it’s entirely accurate to > assert that route leaks are not security issues. While not all route leaks > are security issues, some are. It would be more accurate to reflect the > discussion that led us to the conclusion that we can’t secure them because > we don’t know what “them” is yet, and are awaiting GROW to define them in > such a way so that we can evaluate if it’s even possible to secure them in > this framework. That may be a longer discussion that doesn’t belong in the > intro, I don’t know. > I suspect it is. It somewhat seems like a non-terminating discussion.... W > Also I think the parenthetical “as are many other things" is unnecessary > and clunky. > > > Thanks, > > Wes > > > On 1/10/14, 8:38 PM, "Chris Morrow" <morr...@ops-netman.net> wrote: > >> >>Working Group Folken, >>Today starts a WGLC for the subject draft: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs> >> >>Abstract: >> This document describes requirements for a BGP security protocol >> design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin AS had the >> right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the AS Path >> of the announcement. >> >>Please have a read-through and send comments at the authors + >>sidr@ietf.org mailing list. >> >>This WGLC completes in 1,209,600 seconds, or 20,160 minutes. >> >>Thanks! >> >>-chris >>co-chair >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>sidr mailing list >>sidr@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
