From nobody Mon Feb 5 10:07:08 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450AC126C25 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:07:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IDVx7rSSMW84 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBCDC120713 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id r1so3627421pgn.11 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=vsSWwJF+Kz/Dk3UBLKM71K23p/y3S5LAJSEud9pdqS8=; b=d2fjI+O8yw/mk3+j2DzwcG6ge9S54jzNi4dOcBSnQss8sbOebceJ7xOfta1fdb+fC0 3WcbWxLOTZZew7hc4mcIVbdioMM/mVpR9MYvmxjmHeup5j9/W8mxnnQ9IF2X8Eg4KBDv 1PGWj6zzzx7CR3KCGhxVYk2HBDY4pgVwq1Rcbw1U2LIDu8M/EEGOVVAqDk8LhJlGss6v YfpxBbJ95MCOH83A4SXpMNLFdbdMMj9oSpEV7hlUrhEnpkgsZ041sqYgm6JMr7hNDziI ZwFTYyOVWO0Pflb4DgNaiZrZHo7h3H7x+/gbKR2lKs+10N86oQbDAQ0eosGS2TTO8/ou Ps6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=vsSWwJF+Kz/Dk3UBLKM71K23p/y3S5LAJSEud9pdqS8=; b=UMjzRdZo/Ew2bW4uvRqQrEmK/i8SLgXOplIZFHu3Zs8W5YgETWL2y6k3yLRjni7+uJ FUFoiHbjdRxJSUPVgb8H0w2HSGc6lkn0Q3qEu0ilbttG3mKdt089a+v8tc9bTz0UoytZ EFurR293+a5/67H/giTwMlSp/LkmdFYDVdXSJaBI1CoJ5qAmBmBIgdesebQ+kQQa02M3 YQ3F6CCT/TBjsDpQxXTatFrJDHglEYGbvpd9qcX/kCQtyLjkeHa4nrDzPzCTAmC2YhjW F4Zzalh3B7gHhVNGnKqLaV0PW7oQOo0zLEAUye+ZCMz8zYctdNuyhTd6tR6bFEpJB+ma bBpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc/npO6uCowpnFh515grbj9kuj9PhlibXyoFKdHjEMHqV7c0KRP QhL/pbSjW8JeN+nV7qXhv9CreOwD X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225PwWitUUtZPpoiGwT2f95yglTVHNWJ6P5hLPglNsmVmv/7KfpR0Z7x8DqEl/0bKPpVz371Xg== X-Received: by 10.99.124.89 with SMTP id l25mr11186158pgn.324.1517854024032; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 10:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.22.20.167] ([64.191.222.110]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h80sm18879069pfj.12.2018.02.05.10.07.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 10:07:03 -0800 (PST) To: lsvr@ietf.org From: Ignas Bagdonas Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:06:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Archived-At: Subject: [Lsvr] Comments on LSVR charter X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 18:07:06 -0000 Hi there, [Speaking as an individual WG member] A few nit comments on 00-04 charter: - Error handling as specified in RFC4271 is not practical and in fact dangerous, it should reference RFC7606 instead. - Routing decisions as a norm involve policy. If it is expected to have policy mechanisms available and usable by operators, those mechanisms should be equivalent/similar to what is being used for "regular" BGP today. As a minimum the community marking schemes should be aligned to what is being used in the field. - The YANG model part of the charter for manageability seems to be somewhat too narrow given the scope of proposed changes and targeted deployment space. One of operational pains with EVPN is that initial awareness of it was along the lines of "it is just a BGP for /48s", but apparently that is not the case. There is a document on EVPN usage now, something similar would be good to have for LSVR, describing the protocol mechanics for bootstrapping and operation for generic use cases, and not wire formats only. Another aspect - manageability does not stop at YANG module as such, it is important to define and explain the rationale behind the management approaches taken if they are different than for "regular" BGP. Ignas From nobody Mon Feb 5 14:00:00 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549BF12DA13 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kIfxfrldiZs6 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x233.google.com (mail-ot0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AE911241F8 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v5so28360419oth.5 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:59:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lA6Srwc/8i46vCOYiNd3HSkCtuHsMkhetSGHowG3BD0=; b=uTR5/NwYbEe51Wl6TD+CFlKyA5m12ZYdrfNrKNNcLKxIIOCQI1+KuuWkd4ikRYXfpR vgACzgjtRsEhvJBg6BuIBsdMjapeY+18CDNcr1T/i/qk8RPFkzbkp9BHi5OLCvxM3OMJ mRG/MIqZLPD6ZE5mM8887cqJUV4j53sEN2PhilL9Jr/u/S6EgCDqXFJaWFiMxjVMvjXs E85toXAleUbKG/yDbdbk4VpBiSOSCIyexten7dw/XZ0URshEaJClP2VBjeKvMAohGwbW SYQxol1xN7beg6t23CBrICyYiS5aCP+d4diBI71zTHjA19f6P1j8aLJTdjwSoSh3DJ4D qtLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lA6Srwc/8i46vCOYiNd3HSkCtuHsMkhetSGHowG3BD0=; b=OmcKtqPkiGV8M9K6dJfqYRfCdFPmSPQMreInr/DIlbTR421UnrqVhvFnIgGuQnIe/d 7OhRRyVQVxiEFpgwXIbMfZbLwdMpicrT8OazfEzxZtm77KPePKRaAiHOzgJiCCzpHrog iPGIp/z5AmFHMgTx6lggRAHN/hHIJQFMz/G8eCmpIMpmHe/5QNpFDM/2ckDye+I4vNm7 jXIUUlny8JVcpFKMdecK5gc6i4lskJC8dR6jRMLgwzYMzqKnbVF6StgMfQaXu1PrLcvD aGdwLVAP/g81aIurjLzlMwf9phGhuxnIVrdwv7mhVdAcJQCgGuegBkelHqRG5o+kTZV/ Ak3A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCWtukg6zyguSyc8RNz95KYqFpIVe9xOgnox3Zh9TTydjeWCq7c EjenprvIfXGJO6lyU4e9sTTOvJPNnV7CRXKYNKM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2277KKPP09IblEClhI/afXhkXKp39G+UgQjtieGbRQT7KFDF1HPKvZHkwAtMefcz25Bo8hpaoG1c7o1UmabSGV4= X-Received: by 10.157.114.150 with SMTP id t22mr208867otj.164.1517867995700; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:59:54 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:59:54 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ignas Bagdonas , lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c137f4eb3237505647e2e38" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Comments on LSVR charter X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:59:58 -0000 --94eb2c137f4eb3237505647e2e38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On February 5, 2018 at 1:07:09 PM, Ignas Bagdonas (ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Ignas: Hi! - Error handling as specified in RFC4271 is not practical and in fact dangerous, it should reference RFC7606 instead. That was meant as a reference to BGP, not error handling=E2=80=A6. Instead= of adding more references and risk forgetting one, I=E2=80=99ll take out the o= ne to rfc4271 as I think everyone knows what is meant by =E2=80=9CBGP-4=E2=80=9D = and related documentation. OLD> "utilize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 (RFC4271) consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752)=E2=80=9D NEW> "utilize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752)= =E2=80=9D I am leaving in the reference to rfc7752 because that one is very specific to what lsvr is doing. - Routing decisions as a norm involve policy. If it is expected to have policy mechanisms available and usable by operators, those mechanisms should be equivalent/similar to what is being used for "regular" BGP today . As a minimum the community marking schemes should be aligned to what is being used in the field. Can you please suggest text? I note that the current charter has this sentence in the second paragraph: "An LSV is intended to be specified as a data structure comprised of link attributes, neighbor information, and other and other potential attributes that can be utilized to make routing decisions.=E2=80=9D It doesn=E2=80=99= t explicitly say anything about communities =E2=80=94 adding something there (?) about the a= bility to use multiple tags might be appropriate. - The YANG model part of the charter for manageability seems to be somewhat too narrow given the scope of proposed changes and targeted deployment space. One of operational pains with EVPN is that initial awareness of it was along the lines of "it is just a BGP for /48s", but apparently that is not the case. There is a document on EVPN usage now, something similar would be good to have for LSVR, describing the protocol mechanics for bootstrapping and operation for generic use cases, and not wire formats only. I think that is covered by "Applicability Statement for the use of LSVR in the Datacenter=E2=80=9D. Another aspect - manageability does not stop at YANG module as such, it is important to define and explain the rationale behind the management approaches taken if they are different than for "regular" BGP. I agree. We didn=E2=80=99t add all the specifics that the documents should= have, but I fully expect the protocol specification to go into operations and management details =E2=80=94 using rfc5706 as a guide. Thanks! Alvaro. --94eb2c137f4eb3237505647e2e38 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On February 5,= 2018 at 1:07:09 PM, Ignas Bagdonas (ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

<= /font>
Ignas:

<= font face=3D"Helvetica">Hi!

=
- Error handling as specified in RFC4271 is not pract= ical and in fact=C2=A0<= br style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal= ;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;wo= rd-spacing:0px">dangerous, it should reference RFC7606 instea= d.=C2=A0

That was meant as a ref= erence to BGP, not error handling=E2=80=A6.=C2=A0 Instead of adding more re= ferences and risk forgetting one, I=E2=80=99ll take out the one to rfc4271 = as I think everyone knows what is meant by =E2=80=9CBGP-4=E2=80=9D and rela= ted documentation.

OLD> "util= ize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-= 4 (RFC4271) consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752)=E2=80= =9D

NEW> "utilize existing IP= v4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 consistent wi= th BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752)=E2=80=9D

I am leaving in the reference to rfc7752 because that one = is very specific to what lsvr is doing.


<= span>
- Routing decisions as a n= orm involve policy. If it is expected to have=C2=A0
policy mechanism= s available and usable by operators, those mechanisms=C2=A0
should b= e equivalent/similar to what is being used for "regular" BGP=C2=A0
today.= As a minimum the community marking schemes should be aligned to=C2=A0
what is being used in the field.= =C2=A0

Can you please suggest text?

I note that the current charter has this sentence in the= second paragraph: "An LSV is intended to be specified as a data struc= ture comprised of link attributes, neighbor information, and other and othe= r potential attributes that can be utilized to make routing decisions.=E2= =80=9D =C2=A0It doesn=E2=80=99t explicitly say anything about communities = =E2=80=94 adding something there (?) about the ability to use multiple tags= might be appropriate.


- The YANG model part of the charter for manageability seems to be=C2=A0
somewhat too narrow given the scope of proposed changes and targe= ted=C2=A0
deployment space. One of operational pains with EVPN is th= at initial=C2=A0
awareness of it was along the lines of "it is = just a BGP for /48s", but=C2=A0<= /span>
apparently that is not the case= . There is a document on EVPN usage now,=C2=A0
something similar wou= ld be good to have for LSVR, describing the=C2=A0
protocol mechanics= for bootstrapping and operation for generic use=C2=A0
cases, and no= t wire formats only.=C2=A0

I thi= nk that is covered by "Applicability Statement for the use of LSVR in = the Datacenter=E2=80=9D.

Another aspect - ma= nageability does=C2=A0<= br style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal= ;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;wo= rd-spacing:0px">not stop at YANG module as such, it is import= ant to define and explain=C2=A0
the rationale behind the management = approaches taken if they are=C2=A0
different than for "regular&= quot; BGP.=C2=A0

I agree.=C2=A0 We didn=E2=80=99t add all the specifics that the documents = should have, but I fully expect the protocol specification to go into opera= tions and management details =E2=80=94 using rfc5706 as a guide.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--94eb2c137f4eb3237505647e2e38-- From nobody Tue Feb 6 16:57:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4050B124207; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:07:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: lflynn@amsl.com, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151795846921.25985.6379285322480587560.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:07:49 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:57:44 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] lsvr - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:07:49 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Liz Flynn, on behalf of the lsvr working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Link State Vector Routing Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Liz Flynn Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 100 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: babel, bier, idr, isis, ospf, lsr, rtgwg, rtgarea, sidrops, opsec, spring, bess, grow, nvo3 People who must be present: Gunter Van de Velde Alvaro Retana Victor Kuarsingh Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Wed Feb 7 07:22:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB4512D77E; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:20:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kathleen Moriarty To: "The IESG" Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:20:15 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:22:03 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:20:15 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: Block 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the protocol rather than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could just be an explanation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protocol that does not include mitigations for threats. Could you please revise the charter to address this distinction? From nobody Wed Feb 7 07:27:36 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BDC12D77E; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:27:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n1NTlsxWsycV; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAB9D120454; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:27:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518017248; x=1519226848; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zA9kIWTH1vXlVYqjNnxOJB9Yp1T7MO2Z+ugeM8Cr6JU=; b=NEhD4gD5tc5WAIdNYmz3RwVxZYURBdWupTQyuW0Mrhk3SVo7mxquCwUB PrDJi4tQRrVzdj4uBAIheO6709cIcYgLT6yxZxzS2l7bhkhO+V+XJsY7B U2aHK812pWNqEPU4CVmu7Z7vSPCQariDZ0s6ks4O3Ms/I4hdWmYfbSkdD 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CoAAAIGnta/4kNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMgMWZwKAqDW4okjiaLF449FYIDChgLhRgCGoJPVBgBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJrKIUkAgQBASEROgsQAgEIGgImAgICHwYLFRACBAENBYodAxUQsVOCJ4c4D?= =?us-ascii?q?YExggoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEPg2aCFYNogwWCa0QBAQIBAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?6ARIBH4MXMYI0BYpqmQo1CQKIHIgBVYUHgh4jhgSLeY16SIkbAhEZAYE7AR85Y?= =?us-ascii?q?HBwFT0qAYIbhHd4AYtXgSWBFwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,473,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="67053439" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2018 15:27:27 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w17FRRPr030251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:27:27 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:27:26 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:27:26 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: Kathleen Moriarty , The IESG CC: "lsvr-chairs@ietf.org" , "lsvr@ietf.org" , "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" Thread-Topic: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) Thread-Index: AQHToCdrVS3IR0uu6UqFbSqZSsod76OZD/oA Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:27:26 +0000 Message-ID: <4F796931-A964-4BB5-AE47-1C77E58C8FF1@cisco.com> References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <22D3216F19A7004BA24E3AFCA3F9DE8A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:27:31 -0000 SGkgS2F0aGxlZW4sIA0KDQrvu79PbiAyLzcvMTgsIDEwOjIyIEFNLCAiTHN2ciBvbiBiZWhhbGYg b2YgS2F0aGxlZW4gTW9yaWFydHkiIDxsc3ZyLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9m IEthdGhsZWVuLk1vcmlhcnR5LmlldGZAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KICAgIEthdGhsZWVu IE1vcmlhcnR5IGhhcyBlbnRlcmVkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYmFsbG90IHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvcg0K ICAgIGNoYXJ0ZXItaWV0Zi1sc3ZyLTAwLTA0OiBCbG9jaw0KICAgIA0KICAgIFdoZW4gcmVzcG9u ZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFs bA0KICAgIGVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiB0aGUgVG8gYW5kIENDIGxpbmVzLiAo RmVlbCBmcmVlIHRvIGN1dCB0aGlzDQogICAgaW50cm9kdWN0b3J5IHBhcmFncmFwaCwgaG93ZXZl ci4pDQogICAgDQogICAgDQogICAgDQogICAgVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBhbG9uZyB3aXRoIG90aGVy IGJhbGxvdCBwb3NpdGlvbnMsIGNhbiBiZSBmb3VuZCBoZXJlOg0KICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRy YWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2NoYXJ0ZXItaWV0Zi1sc3ZyLw0KICAgIA0KICAgIA0KICAgIA0K ICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCiAgICBCTE9DSzoNCiAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQogICAgDQog ICAgSSdkIHByZWZlciB0byBzZWUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSB3aWxsIGJlIHNlY3VyaXR5IHByb3BlcnRp ZXMgaW4gdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHJhdGhlcg0KICAgIHRoYW4ganVzdCBzZWN1cml0eSBhbmQgcHJp dmFjeSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucy4gIFRoZSBsYXR0ZXIgY291bGQganVzdCBiZSBhbg0KICAgIGV4 cGxhbmF0aW9uIG9mIGFsbCB0aGUgcG9zc2libGUgYmFkIHRoaW5ncyB0aGF0IGNvdWxkIGhhcHBl biB3aXRoIGEgcHJvdG9jb2wNCiAgICB0aGF0IGRvZXMgbm90IGluY2x1ZGUgbWl0aWdhdGlvbnMg Zm9yIHRocmVhdHMuICBDb3VsZCB5b3UgcGxlYXNlIHJldmlzZSB0aGUNCiAgICBjaGFydGVyIHRv IGFkZHJlc3MgdGhpcyBkaXN0aW5jdGlvbj8NCg0KWW91J2xsIG5vdGljZSB0aGF0IG91ciBjaGFy dGVyIGl0ZW1zIGV4dGVuZCBCR1AgZm9yIHRoaXMgcHVycG9zZSBzbyBpdCBpcyBub3QgYSBjb21w bGV0ZWx5IG5ldyBwcm90b2NvbCBhbmQgd2Ugd2lsbCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGF2YWlsIHRoZSBhcHBs aWNhYmxlIEJHUCBzZWN1cml0eSBhbmQgcHJpdmFjeSBtZWNoYW5pc21zLiBIZW5jZSwgSSB0aGlu ayAiU2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIFByaXZhY3kgQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMiIGFyZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4g DQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkFjZWUgDQoNCiAgICANCiAgICANCiAgICANCiAgICANCiAgICBfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KICAgIExzdnIgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0DQogICAgTHN2ckBpZXRmLm9yZw0KICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbHN2cg0KICAgIA0KDQo= From nobody Wed Feb 7 09:47:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF8A12D84D; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NowqIHVpetyw; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x242.google.com (mail-oi0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3FB124F57; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 24so1294639oij.3; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:47:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CY6+SNXgKKbzGbpr8nDaOfO+KAAD3m2Jxt1kHeGg9PQ=; b=mQEeYgIilBPZC4cETEJLCmPHjzbVuixhJWJVsfssbhteLfDUiy5W7k2z1f3yrIy4jO tFZuYNEZ2On58LoSZRPiMJR6dta2VQN2DOqshUfxuALGVTc5rW+bhlCFraHfi/fR79YY u3EG5WUSxdyAodvFzoXeq97DciSztn/sfpRTcpHBMJ5AOhO/jSHMVdE31sKXlgKAkKn+ yEEv/zXuqd6nFIOwJxyaeP9DKjMCpxdvDzyI4XSpBgsymJTj8T0rPkzpGUWTF1UM/MV4 YeLevbQ6DVqMyZqNJAV9PNAhPnJWhys2mrkkjtFScPIMalQzbOh43lFovssS10PGTZN2 RFuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CY6+SNXgKKbzGbpr8nDaOfO+KAAD3m2Jxt1kHeGg9PQ=; b=MJTT3hyUFdwoKIApzC/Hfb0HkhTw7xkhqfN3akc75S8O5+sZg3qa2vktlK8SUW7OZ8 w2cTTKQHDWYX7PQKRH49TRkwnxS/Bz8ZUO+R8puoXfDUCCohoaOn/4bZb5Lw+DMd+e1P qEqj0Omdped1+FdyB3DadBU+veFOJp6KiJKhVNiz7Qn8BSkJMgo07e4PFXaDuk5lICtl Sy3zO80V1+BW1sDD4yOWn1/SzXn8VHST3daiYFzn6SjKgYEyo+YjIHpLH4vCWuV3eoup RLdfpv6j3lsefSJiN9zNMLXP8AUZ/TtHSnuwnrtiT1nBkjKLcb9rbuwwoqnXNtCd8THV 3LsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBs5rt9+xE9heiWaLYpYTJ5dKYT0ljL6K45cTXL9AXeBrFfIBpk otDI+Or1uNJaVKLTxKGohYtzlYMyKRmgLFpQpTc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227zilj/WAWyfhmSPi0iaw7mebs/iefO5iAnK6GGRFtxnwqo2tCfEQ8Xb157Kqq6cKwn6AT2I5gakGrmx1R9tZo= X-Received: by 10.202.229.206 with SMTP id c197mr4361918oih.214.1518025634848; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:14 -0800 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:14 -0800 Message-ID: To: The IESG , Kathleen Moriarty Cc: lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11408b6cb9a4760564a2e21e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:47:17 -0000 --001a11408b6cb9a4760564a2e21e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On February 7, 2018 at 10:20:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty ( kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Kathleen: Hi! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the protocol rather than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could just be an explanation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protoco= l that does not include mitigations for threats. Could you please revise the charter to address this distinction? I=E2=80=99m not sure exactly what you want to add. Can you please suggest = text? As Acee mentioned, lsvr builds on top of BGP, so enhancing the base just for lsvr applications shouldn=E2=80=99t be a goal. Thanks! Alvaro. --001a11408b6cb9a4760564a2e21e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On February 7, 2018 at 10:20:15 AM, Kathleen Mori= arty (kathleen.moriarty= .ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

Kathleen:

Hi!<= /div>

----------------------------------------------------------= ------------=C2=A0
B= LOCK:=C2=A0
--------= --------------------------------------------------------------=C2=A0

I'd prefer to see that there will be security properti= es in the protocol rather=C2=A0
than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could= just be an=C2=A0
ex= planation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protocol<= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=C2=A0
that does not = include mitigations for threats. Could you please revise the=C2=A0
charter to address this dist= inction?=C2=A0

I=E2=80=99m not sure exactly what= you want to add.=C2=A0 Can you please suggest text?

As Acee mentioned, lsvr build= s on top of BGP, so enhancing the base just for lsvr applications shouldn= =E2=80=99t be a goal.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--001a11408b6cb9a4760564a2e21e-- From nobody Wed Feb 7 09:56:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A740212D7EB; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DhTe5P2i_VV6; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F29E124F57; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 4so1304764ois.10; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N+m1C+0HNUVVKFEHhcHMAbvBhrT+j6wbAD06/b10DRE=; b=RdVUA8Ox9U+ljA4rYiZ5z0GMJQLJnx1wb4FPrnip8jz6od4RbexXNuZq74gP9rq3vm KF0AGGa0+q5GoMkFNy10YhhS0ZDaBDj6NrPg7lQ3Vsch2TR2x7SLj3GaVzt0AGlrzye3 WMl4XqwzmT1wz93Z0eHiFZpTbpmE2RR/veSdac2ViIWLVt0i+/kbJ7dd4PpZOGB2guRM 23gs2lt4mdsIVlQrtnOkRHsQY7QA9MwJVgAoeVe19EVnnyJtcgg+fJWGZS5ujv3R3lG5 vUHM+ygRgME/4MTWy3bKn7Xi9IYzETm0jwSesx/aB2xIQnopbXb+SYEwtlS+EjB3LNTG qZKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N+m1C+0HNUVVKFEHhcHMAbvBhrT+j6wbAD06/b10DRE=; b=C+ABCjBXuhB4poDOdCbMZr1eegDz77ynZLN2GB5QnRh/xUqw6Y+n8aH6mdPb5pZNnm 5BCtgZrdz9xLFXClRdbb/n34Gg8nRewLHETUl+m1Ib52L8je5oSGiQyQr1piF6nGxji9 XELrX6OPlnxXM0rPoh9AMX2WTSb2Q3Fvy3FkePv/mZzA5pM8EH1HdlMYUgeK0pv8INm9 Juw8taKDdD2POvkTBaE2Ad0e7p7cVyUgl748gHfZYqPGHxLXHvkoRZaZmT6Zm1SHdzob ubritgNpH9MyROUxz+Y2O+7eMJ95OZLeIcRad3fIRFrGLTBulEcm/l/TprOHns1rVf6W JNUw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAcT8+UQ/QessfOOxPD6Twkdh3uKU5OfO+N2OGOkov4BHXunYGg /rdPYR6tiI5NGKXvo1ZcWDCMjfgkTK06Ze+hGpc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224QWFkj6jPsH60JNYSfiWjf47fMmeuRdnqTVr0pWoMg8gGZsa5nM57+AWGWe1t8D39JdzVkWWDuX5n0KfsCDIM= X-Received: by 10.202.87.203 with SMTP id l194mr4732772oib.356.1518026215459; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:55 -0800 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:55 -0800 Message-ID: To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, The IESG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dee7e55114a0564a305ec" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:56:58 -0000 --001a113dee7e55114a0564a305ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kathleen: Hi! After reading your comments on the rift charter=E2=80=A6 One of the items that is not included in this charter is a Threat Analysis. Are you looking for that analysis, *and* explicit mitigation as identified there? If so, then we can definitely add that =E2=80=94 with th= e understanding that this WG may not be able to address all the mitigations because they might need to be addressed in the BGP base (by idr). Let me know if I=E2=80=99m on the right track. Thanks! Alvaro. On February 7, 2018 at 12:47:14 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: On February 7, 2018 at 10:20:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty ( kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Kathleen: Hi! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the protocol rather than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could just be an explanation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protoco= l that does not include mitigations for threats. Could you please revise the charter to address this distinction? I=E2=80=99m not sure exactly what you want to add. Can you please suggest = text? As Acee mentioned, lsvr builds on top of BGP, so enhancing the base just for lsvr applications shouldn=E2=80=99t be a goal. Thanks! Alvaro. --001a113dee7e55114a0564a305ec Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
Kathleen:

Hi!

Af= ter reading your comments on the rift charter=E2=80=A6 =C2=A0

One of the items that is not incl= uded in this charter is a Threat Analysis.=C2=A0 Are you looking for that a= nalysis, *and* explicit mitigation as identified there?=C2=A0 If so, then w= e can definitely add that =E2=80=94 with the understanding that this WG may= not be able to address all the mitigations because they might need to be a= ddressed in the BGP base (by idr).

Let me know if I=E2=80=99m on the right track.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On F= ebruary 7, 2018 at 12:47:14 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

On February 7, 2018 at 10:20:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

Kathleen:

Hi!

----------------------------------------------------------------------=C2=A0
BLOCK:=C2=A0
----------------------------------------------------------------------=C2=A0

I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the protocol rather=C2=A0 than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could just be an=C2=A0
explanation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protocol=C2=A0
that does not include mitigations for threats. Could you please revise the=C2=A0
charter to address this distinction?= =C2=A0

I=E2=80=99m= not sure exactly what you want to add.=C2=A0 Can you please suggest text?

As Acee mentioned, lsvr builds on top of BGP, so enhancing the base just for lsvr applications shouldn=E2=80=99t be a goal.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--001a113dee7e55114a0564a305ec-- From nobody Wed Feb 7 14:13:38 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD903126DED; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:13:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alia Atlas To: "The IESG" Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151804161683.17016.1668691862506014332.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:13:36 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Lsvr] Alia Atlas' Yes on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 22:13:37 -0000 Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: Yes 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to see the discussion of the interaction between LSVR and BGP routes to be more clearly called out in the charter, as discussed on the mailing list. I don't have specific text. From nobody Wed Feb 7 19:46:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9234512D849; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:46:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9-7C6vfWWNOZ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C23E12D7F6; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ejdAH-0000XQ-1Z; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:46:25 +0000 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:46:23 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: IESG , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:46:27 -0000 hi kathleen, > I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the > protocol rather than just security and privacy considerations. The > latter could just be an explanation of all the possible bad things > that could happen with a protocol that does not include mitigations > for threats. Could you please revise the charter to address this > distinction? point taken. while i don't think lsvr is as far along the sec path as rift is, i am not sure it should be at this point. as if what i thought was relevant :) having looked at bgp security a bit on occasion, i agree with your worry. what i suggest go in the charter are words to the effect that o the security properties of this change to bgp will be studied and documented o new and existing exposures will be explored and documented, and o either mitigations will be included in the work, or resulting documents will make clear how the operator can mitigate or why we should not worry our little heads. cool? randy From nobody Wed Feb 7 19:51:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EF012D849; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ZDImsWvv24v; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl0-x22d.google.com (mail-pl0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1749212D7F6; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f8-v6so1427221plk.11; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:50:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OryRSnrL961z/FYyGEIH2THB/OCWDxbr8wr1VRBULU0=; b=aPsVExxxRpVC2k5CP6kSI5j5m29+sehT9noJv1u2w5lTF16THg42NWeZZp2Uj8TNe8 K0Aj6sx0cu+E41WCE8VU6AbuZcMZatYramZ+iTAO6fpk6IYu5u31QhpeDmpxi/yWGBLr +CDNvUSxqIL0GNRqqsiDOgZ/6rbsnueUERCezZiDdGr9vkr3Jx84CAfjlIUZyzHf1VVn uI6szHYaV1JxvYs+W1ktbw23lFmOUot82FcHewI380UVgJA7WY5b/GyVWoWzlzUA23av C+xVth0F+6vllNjFbXncRZKgygYMYy5006oDvdkeE7N/s8KGCxMIymKyHK7UvDWQlXNn uSiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OryRSnrL961z/FYyGEIH2THB/OCWDxbr8wr1VRBULU0=; b=sHw9IF+YUBcO9SltmzOXJtjrSXtbv7VrxrGuxFNVA9YzDgbumlHOlbyG//PsGe01kc VpSzQA4JLFvvHm1BSy4Qq43/VWDFntOSasKYaUKFjG+0COiows+RI/HA8ktu7duYXMym UZpM8nJkgHorJ+hRJKnwcQL6vTvoOfhJi8xCDn+pcfuT9OLQ6y8aB8TjrBtrw/pX+FuH LU0UIQvVh45CWwA8AtoAxDwGrEMtSRSCyOtWqCGbjVGM6TFun67/hjrCXlq4wXsm6pNI 1p3d7WOL0jLbaiKzMW5WHURe7SZxSeuMKnN8nqUawaxbpYNMXgvS/hQn6s1GfxP+Filk 0Nhw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCy1mrrnVWy5Wl9KMB4lq6aOtJgc4daqYt3SVIN20rvPSWslsRY EYigvlhbMaGnSFNHwBwHFw5UUOh9saYBXVghIsk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226l70rz+McqLZZ+ELMh4B+2jWh5w+L9bnnK7eJ/NYAYzMMRb+YGu7HiMUTWGOeopmcSShycBcYrkOMq472yn+0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7b8f:: with SMTP id w15-v6mr8393428pll.219.1518061854516; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:50:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.186.143 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:50:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Kathleen Moriarty Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:50:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: Randy Bush Cc: IESG , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:50:57 -0000 Hi, all. Randy's suggestions look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking the time to come up with some text. Sorry for my late response, it's been a busy day! Thank you, Kathleen On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > hi kathleen, > >> I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the >> protocol rather than just security and privacy considerations. The >> latter could just be an explanation of all the possible bad things >> that could happen with a protocol that does not include mitigations >> for threats. Could you please revise the charter to address this >> distinction? > > point taken. while i don't think lsvr is as far along the sec path as > rift is, i am not sure it should be at this point. as if what i thought > was relevant :) > > having looked at bgp security a bit on occasion, i agree with your > worry. what i suggest go in the charter are words to the effect that > o the security properties of this change to bgp will be studied and > documented > o new and existing exposures will be explored and documented, and > o either mitigations will be included in the work, or resulting > documents will make clear how the operator can mitigate or why > we should not worry our little heads. > > cool? > > randy -- Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Wed Feb 7 19:57:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D07112D84A; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:57:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J9F0vs712vSy; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB7BD12D849; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ejdKX-0000bc-Pd; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:57:02 +0000 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:57:00 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: IESG , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 03:57:04 -0000 > Randy's suggestions look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking > the time to come up with some text. Sorry for my late response, it's > been a busy day! good people have long queues. no blame. this explains why i have so short a queue. i do not know who actually has the pen. i suspect i will be getting a nastygram from them soon. if i had the pen, the charter would be a bit different. which explains why they do not let me have the pen. >> what i suggest go in the charter are words to the effect that >> o the security properties of this change to bgp will be studied and >> documented >> o new and existing exposures will be explored and documented, and >> o either mitigations will be included in the work, or resulting >> documents will make clear how the operator can mitigate or why >> we should not worry our little heads. randy From nobody Thu Feb 8 06:41:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C8F12DA00; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtnuQqVqmVBU; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E41B012D957; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id j15so3625871oii.5; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:41:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lmej9mgFrcZOB8OdBbKUpQZs7uAp1gaeQpPosiw6cwg=; b=QU/n2v2IjWna4iaaSbFFeQwiUYX+V69WOM17X81DtXEp0Jh/aCLLbJm4SN0DzTyqdT oYRI2EwViHWTSeD/j8Y2KZi31iddTUaed39rG4YiVAoRxfz2dAalTnFhxGUmSd52IQct RZ/aUUUqJtung1WEMTUC7zdqzmsdJwuyJ+LeTqNt3ZLyIqV9SfSlVOuLBbsz+bXe5Nvw 9CZSrAjKGHUiUsjIOw5k1kSyZ3Zld0gTcChIl42LQ7gs1Mr4zPTqnaWgcVYzxwp8KaAe dYi0B34Fv+SV8eSmPq/yxzxNly13jBSwb+len81R717o+tAalBFTFskNTIYrDej07GRS 7xQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lmej9mgFrcZOB8OdBbKUpQZs7uAp1gaeQpPosiw6cwg=; b=XQ4tCq6GUF+SyexOpqGmSiXlz8vpWWHqrFVgPe4heBDjOhgVRKkodzz9lfNhfFDJ/R yNW7jF0KJEorwNyqBetNFLjOzk0i2ZUWQr3OtsZZxqyC6i11O8JQSD3MK85gigG9G/zq VjPlvn1uNSZmZzbos7h6+cBnV+Oh3LG3hZEAXXgzlLhEGVtxeRIfYDuhTwwUuRCuztq2 c/W9AsJAvErj2ExHN5kn/h7b8gNQ/0l1/egQ7SYfrdNblJeqs7Bj3HfYEggx1DsCzfK1 o2GSKOOBqDK0R0FwJhbB78lNks+GwVh8UDBwxvJPC8L2UAWJXP/6UX8kNEOdP/HN+RAm 1K9A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBpyGLaVFydFT8Kv1i3620hezmaDoMfvDdjyeZz7JHrdNid+Vrx dD9ccx+zXG8mQdzudd9ORyPJgWTVcDzpuiiophM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227theYvlPhLuYbmvHDWpNBkxkgh5n6gRZ9a+q2Y78rtT3u0Ut9pjzTIpsjeDPi7YNkb1dFBxZawAUR6jGLwwXU= X-Received: by 10.202.79.214 with SMTP id d205mr665358oib.308.1518100893369; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:32 -0800 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:32 -0800 Message-ID: To: Randy Bush , Kathleen Moriarty Cc: lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d735a7b8aac0564b4682f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:41:39 -0000 --001a113d735a7b8aac0564b4682f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On February 7, 2018 at 10:50:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty ( kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: [Thanks Randy!!] Kathleen: Hi! Randy's suggestions look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking the time to come up with some text. Sorry for my late response, it's been a busy day! I took Randy=E2=80=99s suggestions and added a paraphrased version to the t= ext. It now reads: - Specification documenting protocol extensions required to efficiently reuse BGP to distribute LSVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include privacy and security considerations - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP will be studied and documented - New attack vectors will be explored and documented - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed and documented https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ Thanks! Alvaro. --001a113d735a7b8aac0564b4682f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On February 7,= 2018 at 10:50:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:
=

[Thanks Randy!!]<= /div>

Kathleen:<= /div>

Hi!
<= div id=3D"bloop_customfont" style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px">
Randy's suggestio= ns look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking=C2=A0
the time = to come up with some text. Sorry for my late response, it's=C2=A0
been a busy day!=C2=A0

I took Randy=E2=80=99s suggestions and added a paraphrase= d version to the text.=C2=A0 It now reads:

=
=C2=A0- Specification documenting protocol extensions requir= ed to efficiently reuse=C2=A0
BGP to distribute L= SVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include privacy=C2=A0
=
and security considerations
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP = will be=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0studied and documente= d=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - New attack vectors will b= e explored and documented
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Mitigat= ions to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed and=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0documented


=
Thanks!

Alvaro.
--001a113d735a7b8aac0564b4682f-- From nobody Thu Feb 8 06:48:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1CC12DA09; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:48:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7Gi8gGD6Ej8; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x244.google.com (mail-ot0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63F6D12DA04; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id l10so4538664oth.1; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:47:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pBIUdTwO8NfytkjBKVt3i/oY8wKLqLuh5pHoeVnjOkE=; b=qa9kNH0hGAxY7meJWC7MAUfDgRLkdU9Y2wMXBOMuy/5LNUk2+j1vUMClgMNRPzIfNj C6OjoadI1lhp79Z/bOfm4FYtG6LnGi5QEpGPCWco8Si9Dvgb+UMJ2VZGzaIINpR+DBGn pKYvMnIMvMvbuNMcKGU7a2VXdJlpcqf+EyFYwiBNgw1C+DYRF1Gr4R5mzR/xVM8/o71B RdvTvyjGFyYK9LaP4qxq5zLvuTyym2qitUUxzuBm0tYTFIpFshK9kCf6ePCBzxoaCZeS kj35qvG7k9NwOPnYjPW2UglufPb5jiZxP8AzXz5SkxBTBHlI/Lgb73LQvn6lTFjeVlLz cI/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pBIUdTwO8NfytkjBKVt3i/oY8wKLqLuh5pHoeVnjOkE=; b=eaClwntI2l0BV5Qbnq+zRgjV81nMg0PZcjFuIOo8yTT67A+l7NbF3WVp1K2tq8Cs1J xRX3pP0W3+B48GBUcIeemSphU2pnTBGXDZZ/VZMkFgNUnEYzqaYNHOM8IIN+v9j6/ekh nFfVeGc22V+02AXgR6E0tzZ1UiCIYK1IwGtjxwGrDFIBjfygpzSX6+Q8ZHK+IlsqmYdX ozTmd+pePXbarMx/A8vDCABxFcnisPNi1Q4ZGiUSA+8sPxZe3bijWS1HQYThySOfGewj BYDQmGi1On20jF4W3vyNbO3DGgbONo7cnujTThYYAJCa51defJytv0X1S96yRKt00qQ+ ZGYw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBC1RUWtj2DL5QLFwIsnV4tS3FnQKBUlQ34JqkSav0h/Ts/hcnE xFS3xWB9S/JNZdxNuM3e/Vg6Hbh8+Yx3JPl+L0w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226qK64mU8Y4WJrEQer9WDY9lvWTCsPUKNmjd6hs1ioU2CfM/ePN0SejOIvxs8THFPh2xBwwRcj+9nZckPws850= X-Received: by 10.157.17.253 with SMTP id y58mr770100oty.187.1518101275567; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:47:55 -0800 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: <151804161683.17016.1668691862506014332.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <151804161683.17016.1668691862506014332.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:47:55 -0800 Message-ID: To: The IESG , Alia Atlas Cc: lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19254e436bd70564b47f6a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Alia Atlas' Yes on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:48:03 -0000 --94eb2c19254e436bd70564b47f6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On February 7, 2018 at 5:13:37 PM, Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) wrote: Alia: Hi! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to see the discussion of the interaction between LSVR and BGP routes to be more clearly called out in the charter, as discussed on the mailing list. I don't have specific text. I think the result of that discussion was the following text in the current version: "The work will include coexistence considerations with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertising routes into the same RIB.=E2=80=9D The intent of lsvr is for their routes to not be mixed with other BGP routes during the selection process, but the interaction would only be in the RIB (just like lsvr could interact with any other protocol also running in the same router). Maybe that needs to be clarified. Alvaro. --94eb2c19254e436bd70564b47f6a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On February 7,= 2018 at 5:13:37 PM, Alia Atlas (akatl= as@gmail.com) wrote:

Alia:

Hi!

--------------------------------------------------------------------= --=C2=A0
COMMENT:=C2=A0=
-------------------------------------= ---------------------------------=C2= =A0

I would li= ke to see the discussion of the interaction between LSVR and BGP routes to = be more clearly=C2=A0called out in the charter, as discussed on the= mailing list. I don't have specific text.=C2=A0

I think the result of that discussion was the followin= g text in the current version: "The work will include coexistence cons= iderations with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and adver= tising routes into the same RIB.=E2=80=9D

The intent of lsvr is for their routes to not be mixed with other BGP = routes during the selection process, but the interaction would only be in t= he RIB (just like lsvr could interact with any other protocol also running = in the same router).=C2=A0 Maybe that needs to be clarified.

Alvaro.
--94eb2c19254e436bd70564b47f6a-- From nobody Thu Feb 8 06:50:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0F712DA23; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:50:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wd_dyTdW7t0W; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1C412DA17; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b3so3640515oib.11; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:50:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KjPGNQqdq6zCtkOlSZUUF5YdXj+OybF/4mUKPgc8fKc=; b=LO0e9CDSSndcOGKd6SvrdtcROPLZOogMgWPDUiXkrISCsXPNnpm7zsvoVAspoQMgvr Q+aIZ0cc/Y9f9zN8cWX+0rftPvqo0MCr2Q5Xf+qUN6LR8MoHyytweiwEqafF4EQHWlQ0 Ju49jVwhWH9FyOCHjZB/vT2uvQkxg/HE6qtRLSut7buIP0N620E3gdvoVqslNGjGAPXk BnfuiyY35LCOrDNPq5W3oy8MiS411I3ll5RzUpryRZEFwmMUIwZAmXe1lgWNNfIP3Nda O2pCxhqpmxqu4qrsM6CYwNYr1uLAGwGBZpoLBzcUedShsKSO6nw9DsL1Ghy/OlHMtdSw hKjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KjPGNQqdq6zCtkOlSZUUF5YdXj+OybF/4mUKPgc8fKc=; b=EJ2LPAlm2dbohLceZaPQC4OBxZTGk+c9Saa3pLmVIuSCIeIONtjsF3nBFIPDbeFOHT uh+9QJjqpKFW3RrqNS6/vPYYK0CYGZ2yJcFfegtR4Q5VMN+wpBkMyoYF6ozXuViGfAor HmbTGdgNUW+C0NAzJ+qqXZHOViwur4Z6Ye3bdZDJXzq+/Utwhp90lrkuRty2avJo6P5l xq4YGt1jRAAZmmWSM2RObgtX4N3cAh6pGYhK9EztTcoBkI8yD+A/LTWxTHLJ88kyKg1U XPyHsi28Bu/pgcDos7NVTHX9+5mS9sM4JjVelkF/kgJiQoLdZt1cB9TJhUp3jK0ey+u6 fH8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAbhlrjn+1UHRulB0oNde8gg0Si2qhKW7Bg9tdU3rEI988L/6lD P/zEyo8wt0osxFxs7svkgulicV2FFrg+dZp+Gllgsg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225tWytxvzdv+4bLnY+3648xAMIz8AmBHvIIiXqTmfe4mpmIDFb0a4K8Lt/Y7aikV3/CVQi105RI02sCZqH0DG4= X-Received: by 10.202.89.9 with SMTP id n9mr681585oib.108.1518101449248; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 06:50:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.40.246 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:50:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <151804161683.17016.1668691862506014332.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Alia Atlas Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:50:48 -0500 Message-ID: To: Alvaro Retana Cc: The IESG , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d632e9d94bf0564b48989" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Alia Atlas' Yes on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:50:52 -0000 --001a113d632e9d94bf0564b48989 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote: > On February 7, 2018 at 5:13:37 PM, Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) wrote: > > Alia: > > Hi! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would like to see the discussion of the interaction between LSVR and BG= P > routes to be more clearly > called out in the charter, as discussed on the mailing list. I don't have > specific text. > > I think the result of that discussion was the following text in the > current version: "The work will include coexistence considerations with B= GP > IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertising routes into > the same RIB.=E2=80=9D > > The intent of lsvr is for their routes to not be mixed with other BGP > routes during the selection process, but the interaction would only be in > the RIB (just like lsvr could interact with any other protocol also runni= ng > in the same router). Maybe that needs to be clarified. > Yes - please. --001a113d632e9d94bf0564b48989 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alvaro,

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Alvaro Retana &= lt;aretana.ietf= @gmail.com> wrote:
On Februa= ry 7, 2018 at 5:13:37 PM, Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) wrote:

Alia:

Hi!

-------------------------------------------------= ---------------------=C2=A0
COMMENT:=C2=A0-----------------------------------------= -----------------------------=C2=A0

I would like to see the discussion of the interaction between LS= VR and BGP routes to be more clearly=C2=A0
call= ed out in the charter, as discussed on the mailing list. I don't have s= pecific text.=C2= =A0

I think the result of that discussion was the following tex= t in the current version: "The work will include coexistence considera= tions with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertisin= g routes into the same RIB.=E2=80=9D

= The intent of lsvr is for their routes to not be mixed with other BGP route= s during the selection process, but the interaction would only be in the RI= B (just like lsvr could interact with any other protocol also running in th= e same router).=C2=A0 Maybe that needs to be clarified.

Yes - please.=C2=A0
--001a113d632e9d94bf0564b48989-- From nobody Thu Feb 8 07:16:02 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D258129C6E; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:15:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8uxXEKXC6vnJ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32FA129C6C; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q79so1838284pfl.5; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:15:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YVwQyis7ac+LVF11DtfogKYbSywzSDUqBicAhKEo9Ac=; b=c5ba2Gy69DHCrlOoh476+KaJv9ocwH9kjEDyxwv+WHrle3SUjnCNM/OdhAAtfIqW2o CQeDpcN2Qr1TGe9XgXuTmMZWt0sLt0SKcwxz4QstTKLGMW7GRX3aDTe8Ox95u4KY1d3F /U/ffGS0JxbfzQm8IXrmVu8SAgYpG33r4RdWgaBToySbkugKsKrMtA2xDcPw23KrVxCp iMO0q4HIjhzvWbspLLYQZsZWFxUI7ozINKl8CL0uhrYWtvsdpaBnoyppeEdC63oAcTMY HrqxNOaRFLGAc/JRi/zoC0jzoreiW6HTm+0fuzRnT/AQDQPegIR07LqlKnjofeZoHuCH fYow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YVwQyis7ac+LVF11DtfogKYbSywzSDUqBicAhKEo9Ac=; b=JKYzcqi4pXl/8gbNI3aM9sK+j5H7okWHEofzKukpa6rFGGwUg866MUXpdwlN9wn+VB aCMwt76ZsLEgJRX9khaY+clBWoaybg8sRcyNCGBKAAW4C8o5OojEss79eXndgi4eKqbB 8CjUySs+gmXEkiTUSntVlDJS3rvsWdJNuLzoFYWp5w7ijzhjytPn8Xfdp5DVV21sG8xY ZsbgeVosSwvtetWZripwtzY7rWUp4sitRJdRs0P9TXi8riF9IXt9NlzCo+dIyL2GYD8R /6D3BQkeWp9nqkjbnfpYknvsU6h5SokI/1HEuCnyS+p3/2D4322VrfNEL9YjkiANMcxw vhSg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPC3B1KUjZCPcKT9meMeKZpGfhTv7Z+QZCHQcay/VYOw/3n8SKjV aKBuvFoVX+v4fu64XqEBy5NI/bRakQs/lup3q58= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226C9UR9r+8QZ9x0DemeE9vlyqHYM+b6dB/38jEJZQ93aNMNeGvBHfbFlKNbUSsiQsaBvSXEYvVe4ATE/Oac8Gg= X-Received: by 10.101.80.69 with SMTP id k5mr762753pgo.443.1518102953115; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:15:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.186.143 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:15:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <151801681530.4837.11037127586569187699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Kathleen Moriarty Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Message-ID: To: Alvaro Retana Cc: Randy Bush , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, IESG , lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:15:55 -0000 Thank you! I'll change my position now. Best regards, Kathleen On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Alvaro Retana wrot= e: > On February 7, 2018 at 10:50:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty > (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: > > [Thanks Randy!!] > > Kathleen: > > Hi! > > Randy's suggestions look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking > the time to come up with some text. Sorry for my late response, it's > been a busy day! > > > I took Randy=E2=80=99s suggestions and added a paraphrased version to the= text. It > now reads: > > - Specification documenting protocol extensions required to efficiently > reuse > BGP to distribute LSVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include priva= cy > and security considerations > - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP wi= ll > be > studied and documented > - New attack vectors will be explored and documented > - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed = and > documented > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. --=20 Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Thu Feb 8 07:17:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09932129C6E; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:17:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kathleen Moriarty To: "The IESG" Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151810301999.17192.2216159272838098052.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:16:59 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-05: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:17:00 -0000 Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lsvr-00-05: No Objection 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for updating text around security and privacy threat modeling and mitigations. From nobody Fri Feb 9 09:50:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C9412946D; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 09:10:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: lsvr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <151819622625.1252.4752941039749832693.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:10:26 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:50:56 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] WG Review: Link State Vector Routing (lsvr) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:10:26 -0000 A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by 2018-02-19. Link State Vector Routing (lsvr) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Current status: Proposed WG Chairs: Gunter Van de Velde Victor Kuarsingh Assigned Area Director: Alvaro Retana Routing Area Directors: Alia Atlas Alvaro Retana Deborah Brungard Mailing list: Address: lsvr@ietf.org To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/ Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/lsvr/ Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ Data Centers have been steadily growing to commonly host tens of thousands of end points, or more, in a single network. Because of their topologies (traditional and emerging), traffic patterns, need for fast restoration, and for low human intervention, data center networks have a unique set of requirements that is resulting in the design of routing solutions specific to them. The Link-State Vector Routing (LSVR) Working Group is chartered to develop and document a hybrid routing protocol utilizing a combination of link-state and path-vector routing mechanisms. The LSVR WG will utilize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752) to facilitate Link-State Vector (LSV) routing information distribution. An LSV is intended to be specified as a data structure comprised of link attributes, neighbor information, and other and other potential attributes that can be utilized to make routing decisions. The LSVR specification is initially focused on operation within a single datacenter (DC) as a single distribution domain, which is defined as a set of participating nodes in a single administrative domain. Routing protocol functionality defined by LSVR would be typically routing within a datacenter’s underlay routing plane. The work will include coexistence considerations with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertising routes into the same RIB. The WG will consider the effects (if any) of deploying the LSVR protocol while concurrently using the same transport session as other existing BGP address families. These considerations will be documented as part of the main protocol specification. A mechanism to be able to independently deploy LSVR from other address families may be defined (as needed). In order to achieve the noted objective, the working group will focus on standardization of protocol functionality, defining Link-State Vectors (LSVs) and defining standard path-vector route selection utilizing the Dijkstra SPF based algorithm, BGP-4 protocol mechanics and BGP-LS NRLI encoding. The working group will provide specifications to manage routing information from other unicast routing protocols or BGP address families to common prefixes. The LSVR WG is chartered to deliver the following documents: - Specification document describing LSV with standard Dijkstra SPF route/path selection (calculation) utilizing existing BGP protocol baseline functionality and BGP-LS packet encoding formats - Specification documenting protocol extensions required to efficiently reuse BGP to distribute LSVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include privacy and security considerations - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP will be studied and documented - New attack vectors will be explored and documented - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed and documented - Applicability Statement for the use of LSVR in the Datacenter - YANG model specification for LSVR The WG will closely collaborate with the idr WG. Any modifications or extension to BGP that will not be specifically constrained to be used by LSVR must be carried out in the idr WG, but may be done in this WG after agreement with all the relevant chairs and the responsible Area Directors. Milestones: Mar 2019 - LSVR with standard Dijkstra path selection Mar 2019 - LSV distribution using BGP transport Mar 2019 - Applicability statement for LSVR in DCs Jul 2019 - YANG specification for LSVR From nobody Wed Feb 21 14:06:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65CA126C26; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:04:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Benoit Claise To: "The IESG" Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151925064283.21208.13889812781453477424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:04:02 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:06:31 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:04:03 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-lsvr-00-07: No Objection 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD: - YANG model specification for LSVR NEW: - YANG model specification for LSVR management This might look like a picky editorial comment, but I want to make sure that not only configuration but also operational are covered, for the full management. From nobody Thu Feb 22 07:03:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24601270B4; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MwWfzzvWn9lr; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x22f.google.com (mail-ot0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF191241F3; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k7so4175579otj.0; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eQHR22QEBB1gvP34d+8RuafQULuD0uJuzzmWPUmiEdE=; b=A8o/L9QX9PqXF4dQ2Q7FsFSUhW34M3O/Q590ulb4/ZpjsOX+njEVGN0vmPNZXKJap6 5ILbxjK1hfUyPae8hHzeOgQPMJphfVSWufa4PSYprAJu+M+xXPgecSpV2w1M5zr4/evy L0NJ02Y20ErpK/sRA6NUMs4fso3IT5QaPM5fS4RaLJ1qr9V2kxnYkFY+dHpTd1uA4y7K m/GD4zn3w/u8zJHDGGhw2+UH0otPWqeiiPLso1faSkFDS3s/zy4qFN3aI995ioHaswNw gWGDy9MVXt27UlkGHLQiJlX+AZX4mJa7qjoqsLZjozG/uZ7GjRR7To8Wtb3ePRCPhPE2 Dalw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eQHR22QEBB1gvP34d+8RuafQULuD0uJuzzmWPUmiEdE=; b=nsVpRYgGT9HUtLAVjPcIh9axRqRvVrw2tfN9L3h4j9F3fLxPgNNT16PuIOCOqKgbq3 6MHKPCJtdFL2t+jy8Gha7FgqI5o6wy9w6VP1Sp5dhR1HqAKVfTyjgQnLjK+GStItBUOM 0BO+pjtsOTVY4S5mBUXyHIQRvkKh47+qk2LaJ/wqyzyhPIYavU++ISDgQb0chP8R4a4M dPAsuUPvcIAPa2AJJLM6IjQGO7jeZmgwuKTwriC4kHai4hgF7jqYYvmPOVgMZTKGqLmx gLNCfyuQMDw0jlpwu/dUcPogFlTKC1RxHTkaq9BHGdsyUBvyj0wn5CiLQPJ8MgD0ufP6 Y70w== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAwdccikcXUXkZM52M74/CQQGuhpUC3E4VdEJru2VfEMgsIX9hk mApwrxhza+o6fm5AndWxIzNVs+pSQtLvNyVobXs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224r/ZTxToh44YKaqhTu6tdVTnyZme669pw8AH7c8JQPE5qvqjAfoS3ylkS3wxit0KRKJllXa46vvJvjssj1lZA= X-Received: by 10.157.97.130 with SMTP id g2mr5416581otk.82.1519311831667; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:51 -0800 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: <151925064283.21208.13889812781453477424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <151925064283.21208.13889812781453477424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:03:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: Benoit Claise , The IESG Cc: lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80c89f0079f3c0565ce5a9b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:03:54 -0000 --f4f5e80c89f0079f3c0565ce5a9b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Done! Thanks! Alvaro. On February 21, 2018 at 5:04:03 PM, Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com) wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD: - YANG model specification for LSVR NEW: - YANG model specification for LSVR management This might look like a picky editorial comment, but I want to make sure that not only configuration but also operational are covered, for the full management. --f4f5e80c89f0079f3c0565ce5a9b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
Done!

Thanks!

Al= varo.

On February 21, 2018 at 5:04:03 PM,= Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com)= wrote:

--------------------------------------------= --------------------------=C2=A0
COMMENT:=C2=A0
-------------------------------------------------------------------= ---=C2=A0

OLD:= =C2=A0
- YANG model specification for LSVR=C2=A0
NEW:=C2=A0
<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'helvetica Neue',helveti= ca;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:no= rmal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:= none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);= display:inline!important;float:none">- YANG model specification for LSVR ma= nagement=C2=A0

This might look like a picky editorial = comment, but I want to make sure that= =C2=A0
not only configuration but also operational are cov= ered, for the full=C2=A0
management.=C2=A0<= br style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'helvetica Neue',helvetica= ;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:norm= al;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:no= ne;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
--f4f5e80c89f0079f3c0565ce5a9b-- From nobody Fri Feb 23 07:50:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC3F12D77D; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:50:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: The IESG , lsvr-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <151940104089.24115.7552920982445457840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:50:40 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Lsvr] WG Action: Formed Link State Vector Routing (lsvr) X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:50:41 -0000 A new IETF WG has been formed in the Routing Area. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. Link State Vector Routing (lsvr) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Current status: Proposed WG Chairs: Gunter Van de Velde Victor Kuarsingh Assigned Area Director: Alvaro Retana Routing Area Directors: Alia Atlas Alvaro Retana Deborah Brungard Mailing list: Address: lsvr@ietf.org To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/ Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/lsvr/ Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/ Data Centers have been steadily growing to commonly host tens of thousands of end points, or more, in a single network. Because of their topologies (traditional and emerging), traffic patterns, need for fast restoration, and for low human intervention, data center networks have a unique set of requirements that is resulting in the design of routing solutions specific to them. The Link-State Vector Routing (LSVR) Working Group is chartered to develop and document a hybrid routing protocol utilizing a combination of link-state and path-vector routing mechanisms. The LSVR WG will utilize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752) to facilitate Link-State Vector (LSV) routing information distribution. An LSV is intended to be specified as a data structure comprised of link attributes, neighbor information, and other and other potential attributes that can be utilized to make routing decisions. The LSVR specification is initially focused on operation within a single datacenter (DC) as a single distribution domain, which is defined as a set of participating nodes in a single administrative domain. Routing protocol functionality defined by LSVR would be typically routing within a datacenter’s underlay routing plane. The work will include coexistence considerations with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertising routes into the same RIB. The WG will consider the effects (if any) of deploying the LSVR protocol while concurrently using the same transport session as other existing BGP address families. These considerations will be documented as part of the main protocol specification. A mechanism to be able to independently deploy LSVR from other address families may be defined (as needed). The LSVR protocol is intended as a self-standing routing protocol even if using existing BGP transport mechanisms and encodings, or if sharing the same transport session with other existing BGP address families. Similar as existing routing protocols, the LSVR protocol will not internally combine the route selection mechanisms or share routing information, except through common external interaction methods in the RIB. In order to achieve the noted objective, the working group will focus on standardization of protocol functionality, defining Link-State Vectors (LSVs) and defining standard path-vector route selection utilizing the Dijkstra SPF based algorithm, BGP-4 protocol mechanics and BGP-LS NRLI encoding. The working group will provide specifications to manage routing information from other unicast routing protocols or BGP address families to common prefixes. The LSVR WG is chartered to deliver the following documents: - Specification document describing LSV with standard Dijkstra SPF route/path selection (calculation) utilizing existing BGP protocol baseline functionality and BGP-LS packet encoding formats - Specification documenting protocol extensions required to efficiently reuse BGP to distribute LSVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include privacy and security considerations - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP will be studied and documented - New attack vectors will be explored and documented - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed and documented - Applicability Statement for the use of LSVR in the Datacenter - YANG model specification for LSVR management The WG will closely collaborate with the idr WG. Any modifications or extension to BGP that will not be specifically constrained to be used by LSVR must be carried out in the idr WG, but may be done in this WG after agreement with all the relevant chairs and the responsible Area Directors. Milestones: Mar 2019 - LSVR with standard Dijkstra path selection Mar 2019 - LSV distribution using BGP transport Mar 2019 - Applicability statement for LSVR in DCs Jul 2019 - YANG specification for LSVR From nobody Tue Feb 27 16:54:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3BA12EACE; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:11:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , Cc: lsvr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.73.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151977307430.5200.15312822645324410592.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:11:14 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:54:52 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] lsvr - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:11:14 -0000 Dear Liz Flynn, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. lsvr Session 1 (2:00:00) Monday, Afternoon Session I 1330-1530 Room Name: Balmoral size: 250 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Link State Vector Routing Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Liz Flynn Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 100 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: babel bier idr isis ospf lsr rtgwg rtgarea sidrops opsec spring bess grow nvo3 People who must be present: Gunter Van de Velde Alvaro Retana Victor Kuarsingh Resources Requested: Special Requests: ---------------------------------------------------------