[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-07-04 Thread Tobias Fiebig
Moin, > I have one comment: > > "The AS_PATH of redistributed NLRI MUST NOT violate the valley-free > principle [RFC4012], i.e., [..]" > > There are more forms of route leaks than violations of "valley-free". > Also, I noticed the referenced RFC4012 does not actually mention the > term. I thi

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-07-04 Thread Martin Pels
Hi Tobias, On 03/07/2024 12:11, Tobias Fiebig wrote: In general, it may improve readability to have a separate sections for originating NLRI and re-distributing received NLRI (upstream/downstream). That would be two sections with one point each, and additional overlap. I.e., an AS must ensure t

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-07-03 Thread Tobias Fiebig
Moin, > I think it could be useful to publish the detailed version somewhere. > The new version is very generic, which makes it hard for operators to > check if they've covered all the specifics. In level of detail I see > similarities with ripe-823 (DNS Resolver Recommendations), so perhaps > t

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-07-03 Thread Martin Pels
Hello, On 28/06/2024 09:28, Geoff Huston wrote: Rather than attempt to spoon-feed a reader with a long list of detailed tasks that is most likely incomplete and will be quickly overtaken by subsequent changes in the operational environment, it's more useful to elevate the level of the document

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-06-28 Thread Geoff Huston
Rather than attempt to spoon-feed a reader with a long list of detailed tasks that is most likely incomplete and will be quickly overtaken by subsequent changes in the operational environment, it's more useful to elevate the level of the document and describe what these operational security meas

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-06-28 Thread Bill Woodcock
> On Jun 28, 2024, at 08:46, Tobias Fiebig > wrote: > Nick and I cut down the draft significantly, to focus on the essentials. Yes, this draft and the prior one are, essentially, very different documents. I think the prior draft _looked_ more complete, but was, for the reasons cited, not a

[GROW]Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-02.txt

2024-06-27 Thread Tobias Fiebig
Moin, as discussed in Brisbane, Nick and I cut down the draft significantly, to focus on the essentials. We would appreciate to hear feedback from the WG on whether this goes into the right direction. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tob...@fiebig.nl __