Andrew Alston has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been back and forth on this having read the document several times - and I have to join Warren in an abstention here - for very similar reasons. While I view the security issues in this document as stemming from a former document (RFC8402) - the way I see it, we're building on quicksand here. Yes, RFC8402 says that SRv6 must run in a trusted domain - however, the practical methods of enforcing the trusted domain seem woefully lacking, and then, in addition to that when dealing with replication we then compound the issues created by potential packet injection. I simply cannot see how I can no-object to this, however, I also fully understand the criteria for discuss ballots, and since these issues stem from RFC8402 I do not feel that I'm on solid ground balloting discuss. As such, I must abstain. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
