From nobody Tue Mar 1 17:58:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1A61B4499 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:58:20 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UI9W3z_KdTZ1 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (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 98E4C1B449B for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-x235.google.com with SMTP id fz5so53575660obc.0 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:58:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=s7I6xDnNwNf6C1R6E4BJ6xHvwDKux/hCiRt2YQQ8B44=; b=HLzvdm/t41ETG9gDM8GY1A+YYk4jzHlp+tEKRyP9sUym9jo3JMEte2WfIHQiE9T9Pm clSykkdtVK0Mzt8wCS8k2zRgFOo8fJifgZ8uflN/JfwdMCwO31WA2vsTTpjA8mrT/+H8 vgD5kkxX8EDvo2DqI9RSEcpYx7Y2UlGYZPPPdEQAji07lFwgQ5jh5G58b5pxbVZsFNMl y7FPrVS1tjwooUPHe7JLlWU5id8sOXGEYzMtwfl2w5rExYjRRgXtNz6lnCvYzM4AFE1h HI4Z20rxgjLhr0bihVE4p6ZdqU2RjKKzn0c3eJCo4VJOGJAklJS6IU5JdzzZOzbc726N TKDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=s7I6xDnNwNf6C1R6E4BJ6xHvwDKux/hCiRt2YQQ8B44=; b=XOM/Pl0nhPXd44dS4u3DW2apelfV5lNDafwWnIaXyKymB8X1W1QunPD/w9L+Xxj06D o4umTIMrR1XWisZkDgNkaXScHOZaMCgXR/2esFbj7WPApBnQYo3sq8seSsdXvrcaS8b2 hYX91xg0WAUhb44rNDfLU3kGgxQKlLLSJcIsoJGi98IpTymNzaRcSGcU3DtZ1nxCBYMD tnUxwZ05Elw4/p6v7to5HwATdWJZeG88EacvdmP0hwQysmvQhFoDJIE9qL8ost+3pGNj Odms1JLCcPUlhxYVAbldt8Stj1RIJifFld0QdA/THAyClxAC0m27Al3Wpt/lzESPvzPN 56Jg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLzHOmdAz1uoQ5u9jflHO7XKQIgX8tvDqgD/GSD0N9S9x3yKunlqGiyxbrVc0GhxBd+samCS7e5fo0i2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.93.162 with SMTP id cv2mr19054733oeb.28.1456883894885; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:58:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.205.75 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:58:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <18BE6155-AD15-4C54-9860-52738A567A32@sn3rd.com> References: <0FCAB5B8-420D-4007-8E91-21712D9CD6A5@sn3rd.com> <3BE2095C-08B2-426B-BBB0-77CF7B880DD8@nist.gov> <18BE6155-AD15-4C54-9860-52738A567A32@sn3rd.com> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Matthew Lepinski To: Sean Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d2e608a6d5052d07376f Archived-At: Cc: sidr list , Matthew Lepinski , Michael Baer Subject: Re: [sidr] Modifiation request: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-14 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 01:58:20 -0000 --047d7b33d2e608a6d5052d07376f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I haven't seen any objections to this change on the list. I suspect that the benefits from this change are modest. However, I am happy to see us make a couple of small changes that will make things a bit easier for implementers. I have made the changes Oliver suggested in the next version of the document. I just need to roll in a few last editorial suggestions and then I will toss the new version into the draft repository. Thanks again to Oliver for providing this feedback. - Matt Lepinski On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > Right - so after re-reading this I see it now. > > spt > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 11:19, Borchert, Oliver > wrote: > > > > Sean, > > > > The change relates to the "Sequence of Octets to be Signed" (SOS), not > the signature blocks on the wire. > > For validation and signing, one needs to generate a separate SOS per > algorithm / signature block > > which is the same as it always was - nothing changed here. > > The resulting signature (while signing) will be added to the appropriat= e > signature block, > > and algorithm transfers are still dealt with in the same manner as > before. > > I hope that helps. > > > > Oliver > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/23/16, 10:07 PM, "Sean Turner" wrote: > > > >> Oliver & Michael, > >> > >> I see that the Algorithm Suite Identifier is now included just once, > which saves one byte per signature segment, and that=E2=80=99s great, but= how=E2=80=99s > this new structure going to work if there=E2=80=99s an an algorithm trans= ition? > How will you support indicating the =E2=80=9Cold=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cne= w=E2=80=9D algorithm? > >> > >> spt > >> > >>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 15:05, Borchert, Oliver > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Matt, > >>> > >>> after reading version 14 of the BGPSec protocol draft and after > discussing the > >>> update between us, Michael Baer (BIRD implementer) and I (Quagga > Implementer) > >>> want to propose some changes for generation of the =E2=80=9CSequence= of > Octets to be > >>> Signed=E2=80=9D (SOS) in the draft on pg. 15. This change would modif= y the > order of > >>> information within the SOS as well as the order of attributes within > the > >>> =E2=80=9CSecure_Path=E2=80=9D Segment listed on pg. 8. > >>> > >>> For your convenience I attached this email as pdf document as well. > >>> > >>> NONE of the changes has any impact on the information that is put on > the wire > >>> in regards to adding or removing data. The only on the wire change is > the > >>> ordering of the attributes within the Secure_Path Segment. > >>> > >>> As we are all aware, the most expensive operation within the BGPSEC > protocol is > >>> the crypto operation, especially the Path verification. > >>> With the proposed modification of the SOS, implementers will be able > to utilize > >>> more efficient and higher performing software mechanisms to validate > the > >>> complete chain of signatures in an update. The current form makes thi= s > more > >>> difficult. > >>> > >>> Our request does remove some data from the previous SOS structure, > changes the > >>> order of the remaining attributes within the SOS and includes the > re-ordering > >>> of one data segment on the wire, which will facilitate the SOS > generation. > >>> > >>> > >>> 1) Request for re-ordering the Secure_Path segment > >>> The first request deals with modifying the order of the Secure_Path > segment. > >>> This modification will become more obvious later on when we explain > our request > >>> for changes in the structure of =E2=80=9CSequence of Octets to be Sig= ned=E2=80=9D > (SOS) on > >>> pg. 15. > >>> This is also the only change that has an affect on the data on the > =E2=80=9Cwire=E2=80=9D but > >>> again only regarding the order itself, NOT the content. > >>> > >>> The current format as it is shown on pg. 8 is as follows: > >>> > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | AS Number (4 octets) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | pCount (1 octet) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Flags (1 octet) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> > >>> We request to move the =E2=80=9CAS Number=E2=80=9D field to the end o= f the signature > segment. > >>> This results in the following structure: > >>> > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | pCount (1 octet) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Flags (1 octet) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | AS Number (4 octets) | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> > >>> The reason for this minor change becomes more clear when we explain > our request > >>> for modifying the SOS structure. But as a little preview for where we > want to > >>> go with this, consider the following: > >>> > >>> Having a set of Secure_Path segments, the last field of the following > segment > >>> equals the =E2=80=9CTarget AS=E2=80=9D needed in the SOS structure. B= ut this becomes > more > >>> obvious later on. > >>> > >>> > >>> 2) Modifying the SOS structure=E2=80=9D > >>> > >>> The current structure as it is presented on pg. 15 of draft-14 is as > follows: > >>> > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Target AS Number | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | AS Number | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | pCount | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Flags | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Previous Secure_Path | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | Previous Signature_Block | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | AFI | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | SAFI | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> | NLRI | > >>> +-------------------------------+ > >>> > >>> This structure is very inefficient for signature validation because > for each > >>> signature validation the structure needs to be newly regenerated. > >>> > >>> One major change in version-14 compared to the preceding drafts is th= e > >>> inclusion of all previous signatures to the SOS structure. In the > previous > >>> draft only the directly preceding signature was part of the SOS. > Version-14 > >>> introduces an additional overhead of approximately 91-93 bytes (69-71 > for > >>> signature + 20 SKI + 2 signature length) or ~92 extra bytes per > Signature. > >>> > >>> This means that verifying a 10 hop path, the following additional > overhead for > >>> signatures must be added to each SOS in comparison to draft 13: > >>> > >>> (assumed 92 bytes on average per signature) > >>> > >>> SOS overhead 10 signatures: +828 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 9 signatures: +736 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 8 signatures: +644 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 7 signatures: +552 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 6 signatures: +460 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 5 signatures: +368 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 4 signatures: +276 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 3 signatures: +184 bytes > >>> SOS overhead 2 signatures: + 92 bytes > >>> > >>> For sequential verification only the maximum memory overhead comes > into place > >>> because each consecutive verification will have an SOS size less then > the > >>> previous one. > >>> For parallel verification though each verification itself requires th= e > >>> necessary memory overhead to the SOS which will end up with: > >>> > >>> Cumulative overhead for a 10 hop path: 4,140 bytes > >>> > >>> And this is only the additional memory consumption added with the > signatures. > >>> On top of that comes the prefix information {AFI, SAFI, NLRI} -> > (5...21 > >>> bytes), Path information {AS, pCount, Flags} -> 6 bytes each, and 1 > byte for > >>> algo ID. > >>> > >>> Depending where the data is located during the hash generation (e.g. > L2 cache) > >>> the additional memory accesses could further hinder performance and > negatively > >>> affect convergence time. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, the newly proposed (version-14 draft) SOS includes > Secure_Path > >>> Length and Signature_Block Length, both of which are overwritten at > each hop. > >>> This imposes the additional burden of regenerating these length field= s > for the > >>> SOS corresponding to each signature verification. This again means > that each > >>> parallel working thread is required to generate its own SOS for > signature > >>> validation (see earlier discussion). Hence, it is not desirable to > include > >>> these length fields in the SOS at the sender. Removing these will not > create a > >>> security risk. > >>> > >>> The idea is to generate an SOS that can be re-used so that it only ha= s > to be > >>> generated once and then can be utilized without any modification for > all > >>> signature verifications within an update =E2=80=93 regardless if sequ= ential or > parallel > >>> processing is used. > >>> > >>> > >>> The proposed modification will result in the following SOS structure: > >>> For simplification we combine the signature and path segments shown > below into > >>> a combined segment (in the SOS): > >>> > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> | SKI (n-1) |\ > >>> +----------------------------+ \ > >>> | Signarture Length (n-1) |--- Signature Segment (n-1) > >>> +----------------------------+ / > >>> | Signature (n-1) |/ > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> | pCount (n) |\ > >>> +----------------------------+ \ > >>> | Flags (n) |--- Secure_Path Segment (n) > >>> +----------------------------+ / > >>> | AS Number (n) |/ > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> > >>> The simplification in imploded form looks as follows: > >>> > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> | Signature Segment (n-1) | > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> | Secure_Path Segment (n) | > >>> +----------------------------+ > >>> > >>> Proposed SOS Structure: (See example on next page for n=3D3) > >>> > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> | Target AS Number | > >>> +---------------------------------------+\ > >>> | Signature Segment (n-1) | \ > >>> +---------------------------------------+ | > >>> | Secure_Path Segment (n) | | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ \ > >>> ... > For n Hops > >>> +---------------------------------------+ / > >>> | Signature Segment (1 origin) | | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ | > >>> | Secure_Path Segment (2) | / > >>> +---------------------------------------+/ > >>> | Secure_Path Segment (1 origin) | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> | Algorithm Suite Identifier | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> | AFI | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> | SAFI | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> | NLRI | > >>> +---------------------------------------+ > >>> > >>> This structure allows the generation of one single SOS that can be > accessed > >>> simultaneously by multiple threads (one for each signature > verification). > >>> > >>> With this structure an update containing 10 Signatures contains the > same > >>> overhead of +828 bytes but here it does not need to be re-generated > for each > >>> signature validation. Independent of whether the validation is > performed > >>> sequential or parallel, the overhead remains the same and will NOT > grow to an > >>> extra 4,140 bytes as outlined earlier. This will result in a net > saving of > >>> +3,312 bytes for a path with 10 signatures in addition to the time > saved > >>> generating the SOS for each validation separately. > >>> > >>> Example for generation and processing the new proposed SOS structure > for a > >>> signed path from AS1 to AS4: > >>> AS1=E2=80=94AS2=E2=80=94AS3-AS4 > >>> > >>> +----------------------+ > >>> SOS 3----->| AS 4 | <- (Target AS for signature 3) > >>> | +----------------------+ > >>> | | Signature_Segment (2)| > >>> | +----------------------+ > >>> | | pCount (3)| \ > >>> | +----------------------+ \ > >>> | | Flags (3)| --- Secure_Path Segment (3) > >>> | +----------------------+ / > >>> SOS 2----+>| AS 3 (3)| / <- (Target AS for signature 2) > >>> | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | Signature_Segment (1)| > >>> | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | pCount (2)| \ > >>> | | +----------------------+ \ > >>> | | | Flags (2)| --- Secure_Path Segment (2) > >>> | | +----------------------+ / > >>> SOS 1--+-+>| AS 2 (2)| / <- (Target AS for signature 1) > >>> | | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | | pCount (1)| \ > >>> | | | +----------------------+ \ > >>> | | | | Flags (1)| --- Secure_Path Segment (origin) > >>> | | | +----------------------+ / > >>> | | | | AS 1 (1)| / > >>> | | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | | Algorithm Suite ID | > >>> | | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | | AFI | > >>> | | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | | SAFI | > >>> | | | +----------------------+ > >>> | | | | NLRI | > >>> END +-+-+>+----------------------+ > >>> > >>> > >>> As one can clearly observe the receiver needs only to generate one > single > >>> SOS and can utilize it for validation of all previous signatures > without > >>> the need to regenerate the SOS at each step. > >>> > >>> Better even, the new SOS allows: > >>> - sequential validation processing without the need to regenerate the > >>> SOS data for each validation process; just use pointer arithmetic t= o > >>> specify start of the structure > >>> - parallel validation processing using the same memory location. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Oliver Borchert (NIST) & Michael Baer (PARSONS) > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________= ________ > >>> sidr mailing list > >>> sidr@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > >> > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > --047d7b33d2e608a6d5052d07376f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I haven't seen any objections to this change on the li= st.=C2=A0

I suspect that the benefits from this change are modest. H= owever, I am happy to see us make a couple of small changes that will make = things a bit easier for implementers.=C2=A0

I have made the cha= nges Oliver suggested in the next version of the document.=C2=A0
=
I just need to roll in a few last editorial suggestions and = then I will toss the new version into the draft repository.

<= /div>
Thanks again to Oliver for providing this feedback.
- Matt Lepinski

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3r= d.com> wrote:
Right - so af= ter re-reading this I see it now.

spt

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 11:19, Borchert, Oliver <oliver.borchert@nist.gov> wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> The change relates to the "Sequence of Octets to be Signed" = (SOS), not the signature blocks on the wire.
> For validation and signing, one needs to generate a separate SOS per a= lgorithm / signature block
> which is the same as it always was - nothing changed here.
> The resulting signature (while signing) will be added to the appropria= te signature block,
> and algorithm transfers are still dealt with in the same manner as bef= ore.
> I hope that helps.
>
> Oliver
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/23/16, 10:07 PM, "Sean Turner" <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>
>> Oliver & Michael,
>>
>> I see that the Algorithm Suite Identifier is now included just onc= e, which saves one byte per signature segment, and that=E2=80=99s great, bu= t how=E2=80=99s this new structure going to work if there=E2=80=99s an an a= lgorithm transition?=C2=A0 How will you support indicating the =E2=80=9Cold= =E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cnew=E2=80=9D algorithm?
>>
>> spt
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 15:05, Borchert, Oliver <oliver.borchert@nist.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Matt,
>>>
>>> after reading version 14 of the BGPSec protocol draft and afte= r discussing the
>>> update between us, Michael Baer (BIRD implementer) and I (Quag= ga Implementer)
>>> want to propose some=C2=A0 changes for generation of the =E2= =80=9CSequence of Octets to be
>>> Signed=E2=80=9D (SOS) in the draft on pg. 15. This change woul= d modify the order of
>>> information within the SOS as well as the order of attributes = within the
>>> =E2=80=9CSecure_Path=E2=80=9D Segment listed on pg. 8.
>>>
>>> For your convenience I attached this email as pdf document as = well.
>>>
>>> NONE of the changes has any impact on the information that is = put on the wire
>>> in regards to adding or removing data. The only on the wire ch= ange is the
>>> ordering of the attributes within the Secure_Path Segment.
>>>
>>> As we are all aware, the most expensive operation within the B= GPSEC protocol is
>>> the crypto operation, especially the Path verification.
>>> With the proposed modification of the SOS, implementers will b= e able to utilize
>>> more efficient and higher performing software mechanisms to va= lidate the
>>> complete chain of signatures in an update. The current form ma= kes this more
>>> difficult.
>>>
>>> Our request does remove some data from the previous SOS struct= ure, changes the
>>> order of the remaining attributes within the SOS and includes = the re-ordering
>>> of one data segment on the wire, which will facilitate the SOS= generation.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Request for re-ordering the Secure_Path segment
>>> The first request deals with modifying the order of the Secure= _Path segment.
>>> This modification will become more obvious later on when we ex= plain our request
>>> for changes in the structure of =E2=80=9CSequence of Octets to= be Signed=E2=80=9D (SOS) on
>>> pg. 15.
>>> This is also the only change that has an affect on the data on= the =E2=80=9Cwire=E2=80=9D but
>>> again only regarding the order itself, NOT the content.
>>>
>>> The current format as it is shown on pg. 8 is as follows:
>>>
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | AS Number=C2=A0 (4 octets)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(1 octet)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1 octet)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>>
>>> We request to move the =E2=80=9CAS Number=E2=80=9D field to th= e end of the signature segment.
>>> This results in the following structure:
>>>
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(1 octet)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1 octet)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | AS Number=C2=A0 (4 octets)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>>
>>> The reason for this minor change becomes more clear when we ex= plain our request
>>> for modifying the SOS structure. But as a little preview for w= here we want to
>>> go with this, consider the following:
>>>
>>> Having a set of Secure_Path segments, the last field of the fo= llowing segment
>>> equals the =E2=80=9CTarget AS=E2=80=9D needed in the SOS struc= ture. But this becomes more
>>> obvious later on.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Modifying the SOS structure=E2=80=9D
>>>
>>> The current structure as it is presented on pg. 15 of draft-14= is as follows:
>>>
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Target AS Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | AS Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Previous Secure_Path=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | Previous Signature_Block=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | AFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | SAFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>> | NLRI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +-------------------------------+
>>>
>>> This structure is very inefficient for signature validation be= cause for each
>>> signature validation the structure needs to be newly regenerat= ed.
>>>
>>> One major change in version-14 compared to the preceding draft= s is the
>>> inclusion of all previous signatures to the SOS structure. In = the previous
>>> draft only the directly preceding signature was part of the SO= S. Version-14
>>> introduces an additional overhead of approximately 91-93 bytes= (69-71 for
>>> signature + 20 SKI + 2 signature length) or ~92 extra bytes pe= r Signature.
>>>
>>> This means that verifying a 10 hop path, the following additio= nal overhead for
>>> signatures must be added to each SOS in comparison to draft 13= :
>>>
>>> (assumed 92 bytes on average per signature)
>>>
>>> SOS overhead 10 signatures: +828 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 9 signatures: +736 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 8 signatures: +644 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 7 signatures: +552 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 6 signatures: +460 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 5 signatures: +368 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 4 signatures: +276 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 3 signatures: +184 bytes
>>> SOS overhead=C2=A0 2 signatures: + 92 bytes
>>>
>>> For sequential verification only the maximum memory overhead c= omes into place
>>> because each consecutive verification will have an SOS size le= ss then the
>>> previous one.
>>> For parallel verification though each verification itself requ= ires the
>>> necessary memory overhead to the SOS which will end up with: >>>
>>> Cumulative overhead for a 10 hop path: 4,140 bytes
>>>
>>> And this is only the additional memory consumption added with = the signatures.
>>> On top of that comes the prefix information {AFI, SAFI, NLRI}= =C2=A0 =C2=A0-> (5...21
>>> bytes), Path information {AS, pCount, Flags} -> 6 bytes eac= h, and 1 byte for
>>> algo ID.
>>>
>>> Depending where the data is located during the hash generation= (e.g. L2 cache)
>>> the additional memory accesses could further hinder performanc= e and negatively
>>> affect convergence time.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the newly proposed (version-14 draft) SOS include= s Secure_Path
>>> Length and Signature_Block Length, both of which are overwritt= en at each hop.
>>> This imposes the additional burden of regenerating these lengt= h fields for the
>>> SOS corresponding to each signature verification. This again m= eans that each
>>> parallel working thread is required to generate its own SOS fo= r signature
>>> validation (see earlier discussion). Hence, it is not desirabl= e to include
>>> these length fields in the SOS at the sender. Removing these w= ill not create a
>>> security risk.
>>>
>>> The idea is to generate an SOS that can be re-used so that it = only has to be
>>> generated once and then can be utilized without any modificati= on for all
>>> signature verifications within an update =E2=80=93 regardless = if sequential or parallel
>>> processing is used.
>>>
>>>
>>> The proposed modification will result in the following SOS str= ucture:
>>> For simplification we combine the signature and path segments = shown below into
>>> a combined segment (in the SOS):
>>>
>>> +----------------------------+
>>> | SKI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 (n-1) |\
>>> +----------------------------+ \
>>> | Signarture Length=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n-1) |--- Signature Segment= =C2=A0 =C2=A0(n-1)
>>> +----------------------------+ /
>>> | Signature=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n-1) |/<= br> >>> +----------------------------+
>>> | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0(n)=C2=A0 =C2=A0|\
>>> +----------------------------+ \
>>> | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= (n)=C2=A0 =C2=A0|--- Secure_Path Segment (n)
>>> +----------------------------+ /
>>> | AS Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n)=C2=A0= =C2=A0|/
>>> +----------------------------+
>>>
>>> The simplification in imploded form looks as follows:
>>>
>>> +----------------------------+
>>> | Signature Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n-1) |
>>> +----------------------------+
>>> | Secure_Path Segment=C2=A0 (n)=C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> +----------------------------+
>>>
>>> Proposed SOS Structure: (See example on next page for n=3D3) >>>
>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>> | Target AS Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +---------------------------------------+\
>>> | Signature Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n-1)=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | \
>>> +---------------------------------------+ |
>>> | Secure_Path Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (n)=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | |
>>> +---------------------------------------+ \
>>> ...=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 > For n Hops
>>> +---------------------------------------+ /
>>> | Signature Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1 origi= n) | |
>>> +---------------------------------------+ |
>>> | Secure_Path Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (2)=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | /
>>> +---------------------------------------+/
>>> | Secure_Path Segment=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1 origin) |<= br> >>> +---------------------------------------+
>>> | Algorithm Suite Identifier=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 |
>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>> | AFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>> | SAFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>> | NLRI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>>
>>> This structure allows the generation of one single SOS that ca= n be accessed
>>> simultaneously by multiple threads (one for each signature ver= ification).
>>>
>>> With this structure an update containing 10 Signatures contain= s the same
>>> overhead of +828 bytes but here it does not need to be re-gene= rated for each
>>> signature validation. Independent of whether the validation is= performed
>>> sequential or parallel, the overhead remains the same and will= NOT grow to an
>>> extra 4,140 bytes as outlined earlier. This will result in a n= et saving of
>>> +3,312 bytes for a path with 10 signatures in addition to the = time saved
>>> generating the SOS for each validation separately.
>>>
>>> Example for generation and processing the new proposed SOS str= ucture for a
>>> signed path from AS1 to AS4:
>>> AS1=E2=80=94AS2=E2=80=94AS3-AS4
>>>
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0+---------------------= -+
>>> SOS 3----->| AS 4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|=C2=A0 =C2=A0<- (Target AS for signature 3)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| +----------------------+ >>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | Signature_Segment (2)| >>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| +----------------------+ >>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (3)| \
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| +----------------------+=C2= =A0 \
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(3)| --- Secure_Path Segment (3)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| +----------------------+=C2= =A0 /
>>> SOS 2----+>| AS 3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 (3)| / <- (Target AS for signature 2)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | Signature_Segment (1)|
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (2)| \
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | +----------------------+=C2=A0 \=
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(2)| --- Secure_Path Segment (2)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | +----------------------+=C2=A0 /=
>>> SOS 1--+-+>| AS 2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 (2)| / <- (Target AS for signature 1)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | pCount=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1)| \
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+=C2=A0 \
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | Flags=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(1)| --- Secure_Path Segment (origin)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+=C2=A0 /
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | AS 1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1)| /
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | Algorithm Suite ID=C2=A0 =C2=A0| >>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | AFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | SAFI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | +----------------------+
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| | | | NLRI=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|
>>> END=C2=A0 +-+-+>+----------------------+
>>>
>>>
>>> As one can clearly observe the receiver needs only to generate= one single
>>> SOS and can utilize it for validation of all previous signatur= es without
>>> the need to regenerate the SOS at each step.
>>>
>>> Better even, the new SOS allows:
>>> - sequential validation processing without the need to regener= ate the
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0SOS data for each validation process; just use poi= nter arithmetic to
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0specify start of the structure
>>> - parallel validation processing using the same memory locatio= n.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Oliver Borchert (NIST) & Michael Baer (PARSONS)
>>>
>>>
>>> <BGPSEC-Draft14-ChangeRequest.pdf>______________________= _________________________
>>> sidr mailing list
>>> sidr@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>>

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

--047d7b33d2e608a6d5052d07376f-- From nobody Thu Mar 3 04:56:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1571AC428; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 04:56:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160303125606.7057.84859.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 04:56:06 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-09.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:56:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures Authors : Robert Kisteleki Brian Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-09.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2016-03-03 Abstract: This document describes a method to allow parties to electronically sign RPSL-like objects and validate such electronic signatures. This allows relying parties to detect accidental or malicious modifications on such objects. It also allows parties who run Internet Routing Registries or similar databases, but do not yet have RPSS-like authentication of the maintainers of certain objects, to verify that the additions or modifications of such database objects are done by the legitimate holder(s) of the Internet resources mentioned in those objects. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Mar 3 08:55:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB69E1A883D for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.907 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Smp6w-kZrE2N for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9194E1A8873 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:55:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF03728B0041 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96F21F801E; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:55:16 -0500 (EST) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA6EEDE3-A70D-4BF7-A9CE-F0CA587035E0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:54:43 -0500 Message-Id: To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] agenda requests, please X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:55:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BA6EEDE3-A70D-4BF7-A9CE-F0CA587035E0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 We have a bit more than four weeks to the IETF meeting. Those who have a wish to have some time on the agenda, please make a = request, to the sidr-chairs or to the list as you wish. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_BA6EEDE3-A70D-4BF7-A9CE-F0CA587035E0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW2GxUAAoJEHplpQeet0IZSMYP/iti0YIn5VZLq5V2YXS0lMHx BXwREBq6nlxuBiJE+sBxgvcxNL2wJCOU3p9f6EsamdJmEw+d1S0vrsKgS4CMmxDN w0+HlTDfC81bNNjB4ugq1UjeCVtbmwGpwUycH5HJQZEzMmNiF2VB+hNErttAfsO9 Xfel2vZHkuvPVVAAkraHXuiyWyS6rbPmsFOws88v6I8fGbcsHmXgH+6/I2fbZYGM s0PHTNkmgnfkZMQa+4wEjTwtHdByy0q2MDHsByh++CQM8VYIYQLqNc5vDGZu+Z9m HJ4Upk9tYUmY7zlEmkQ61f9KiQA0HurB0ThoxjDSsa2oiWj7Me/j1dOELeO3hRNG AR8tkkSbRWYDxFYiUv0Ix0CewtmpOAKkNo1I2WvqjfuXQD76cyV6htFSMFMwHIbH cSiC1Y44I8s45yNVU1EJHogzW6xIJAtsLG7r7Qtizhx56smWGT7NWb/SPPfl9Aus VKHfJVMKhGBN+TOn0lnJaw8xCbSl78MyPjZPTcGS7hZDo4WwdEonHTD0/RUYw2Ef tUtI8fWMSPMWd7DnnFm39DsTCDYlrRidPMhsU71A8/YQe/6hGp35OxKjKO5TWZVa 4MIFMpgLE69RARuBbZwlkLHW8ibv37H8DcNXdaN7mas2GTlYka1fc3BDqAN0kcmI OQn3mZ51cn7ut2966F+B =1YOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BA6EEDE3-A70D-4BF7-A9CE-F0CA587035E0-- From nobody Thu Mar 3 10:24:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417FF1B3169; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:24:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160303182438.5652.37192.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:24:38 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] The SIDR WG has placed draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache in state "Adopted by a WG" X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:24:38 -0000 The SIDR WG has placed draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache in state Adopted by a WG (entered by Sandra Murphy) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache/ Comment: adoption call issued in Dec, quick round of support, light but sufficient to indicate wg support for adoption https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/kynXVBSdgOohd7GKASiaAfLy9ig From nobody Thu Mar 3 10:26:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DC21B3014 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:26:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.907 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 rMGgt69t4nMk for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C01301B29BC for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C2828B0042 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:26:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179941F801E; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:26:27 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_254AF29B-DA83-4FA6-86BB-08A10E9E558E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:20:35 -0500 Message-Id: <729C6843-EFDF-40E4-A89C-BB4904A41F0B@tislabs.com> References: To: sidr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:26:29 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_254AF29B-DA83-4FA6-86BB-08A10E9E558E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The responses stream ended quickly, but there were enough to call wg = support for adoption. Authors, please do submit as an official sidr wg document. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the co-chairs On Dec 9, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > As noted in the minutes, the authors of = draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02 request that the = working group adopt this work as a wg work item. >=20 > A working group adoption poll starts now and will end 14 days from now = on 23 December. >=20 > Please respond on the list to say whether you support adoption of this = work as a working group work item AND whether you will participate in = the discussion. >=20 > Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs = responses, not just absence of objection, so speak up. >=20 > --Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_254AF29B-DA83-4FA6-86BB-08A10E9E558E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW2IB0AAoJEHplpQeet0IZO4gP+QH9sbpXJ6rNtK9ZlLOc3clt WOpOm9I+AsrjMDprgg1X+zac2Wsb3FEbRpxjzobI7+QlQn/HMLFh+ZHF1/QUYKbB XZMptp1SoJEqEdHztnAzcXQfBqu/yB3zosroujeZJ6yKQGLI856/W6/E1s5/8WOo eKfG+74Ob6hB6OxZRlgVcr3jmWs9z4gSk/GY170aawW7/zHl320W4BhYZTJNZSpk WQDfNLZx1cnV09ZairNyJ4RHDMOx3j0Y9iru9YJ4qyMhhFsc+pQj6eJA8SKsG9nY jgiBPsVZt5SHbxezEcJ6EgEIXoHb22dOUMWxfO833UFASBWhuq7vOdwOxk5o3/XP lBXOsMkJjWripfkLprLahZpdbrEqT/hs7/JM1XuRATesU0J5ZpnO5tN4/OC0YOAd wsw9cDN1gsdxPNwJVGGckO3TYoB+RJOZZzor2PYozqjDpgP5zXqddqZtWfr8joV/ B74pOrYrWc3uW0iLUp8ppOHBPMeDPGwnuXOkq1ufhe07UbmYWeAhVmWOB8DHjkge Jx35r5TPbUh8ThZqpob1mnevRI+qbmL7YwvrJBkkM4baWn4X7/QNqGq9OLY44pwR qRUfLcFkx5eYltdy1mRNmFob+N8YfS7BftdcY7TXCT4zMblKzwepydqQy+JLsPSO bz1ajVswv9mwXMHsNWF4 =6mx8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_254AF29B-DA83-4FA6-86BB-08A10E9E558E-- From nobody Thu Mar 3 15:54:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAA51B301F; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:54:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160303235404.12938.48712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:54:04 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 23:54:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol Authors : Randy Bush Rob Austein Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2016-03-03 Abstract: In order to verifiably validate the origin Autonomous Systems and Autonomous System Paths of BGP announcements, routers need a simple but reliable mechanism to receive Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RFC 6480) prefix origin data and router keys from a trusted cache. This document describes a protocol to deliver validated prefix origin data and router keys to routers. This document describes version 1 of the rpki-rtr protocol. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Mar 3 15:57:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E37C1B3030 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:57:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham 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 IUBv_CARJVGA for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from adrilankha.hactrn.net (adrilankha.hactrn.net [IPv6:2001:418:1::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9F851B3035 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:57:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by adrilankha.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DBCC17002 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61DD3D4A8CD for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:57:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:57:40 -0500 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20160303235404.12938.48712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160303235404.12938.48712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20160303235740.D61DD3D4A8CD@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 23:57:07 -0000 New version posted per WG chair request to fix a typo in one of the references. No substantive changes. From nobody Fri Mar 4 02:19:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADBB1B35B3 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham 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 yKad_UEVaEBL for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net (mahimahi.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B84F1B35F8 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1abmpr-0005fv-Ll; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:19:53 +0100 Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-50.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1abmpr-0004vY-ES; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:19:51 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <729C6843-EFDF-40E4-A89C-BB4904A41F0B@tislabs.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:19:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <130D7372-428C-43D9-86D7-EC6A02F6E096@ripe.net> References: <729C6843-EFDF-40E4-A89C-BB4904A41F0B@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: / X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -0.2 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07197cfdbffdcf56613bea537e5a99a5cd58 Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:19:59 -0000 Hi Sandy, Technical question. We plan to submit an update before the cut-off date = - no major overhaul but we have some changes. Can we just submit a new version as an official document, or should we = just re-submit this one, and do the update in a week or two? Thanks Tim > On 03 Mar 2016, at 19:20, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > The responses stream ended quickly, but there were enough to call wg = support for adoption. >=20 > Authors, please do submit as an official sidr wg document. >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the co-chairs >=20 >=20 > On Dec 9, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 >> As noted in the minutes, the authors of = draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02 request that the = working group adopt this work as a wg work item. >>=20 >> A working group adoption poll starts now and will end 14 days from = now on 23 December. >>=20 >> Please respond on the list to say whether you support adoption of = this work as a working group work item AND whether you will participate = in the discussion. >>=20 >> Remember that working group consensus to adopt the work needs = responses, not just absence of objection, so speak up. >>=20 >> --Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Mon Mar 7 12:55:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DFF1CDB3B for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:55:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNsrK5U3elOE for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8031CDB42 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98A628B003D for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47241F801E; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:55:13 -0500 (EST) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B0ACD3C-613A-4504-A74D-B4DFC120806A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:53:46 -0500 Message-Id: <71EF4DB3-7C2F-4A2E-A0D9-0BB49566D4C4@tislabs.com> To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] a reminder of important dates for IETF 95 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:55:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4B0ACD3C-613A-4504-A74D-B4DFC120806A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Here=92s a list of important dates coming up for IETF 95. Note that the cutoff for internet drafts is two week away. =95 2016-03-11 (Friday): Final agenda to be published. =95 2016-03-21 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for = all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission = Tool. =95 2016-03-21 (Monday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC = 23:59, upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. =95 2016-03-25 (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment = cut-off at UTC 23:59. =95 2016-03-28 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by = UTC 23:59, upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. =95 2016-03-28 (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at = UTC 23:59. =97Sandy --Apple-Mail=_4B0ACD3C-613A-4504-A74D-B4DFC120806A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW3epmAAoJEHplpQeet0IZOtAP/3/3Il0qPYd/nom8AsDtr31e ORC/XiEbVgJ+HBm416zDw2HzXs/vrk0PCFO1qh7Z4NFPeVZgC6nq6KnVf+DFXOpE Mbl0oSoM1XY44uy9JU8smVecKWVrwvXzqe9OyhXBwYgVHP4DIo1jymAL4aEfUT3Y Dyk0upRpIc+8OlZY4bWQcSg678ri+Dc2qrV3I32L+E+wC2DAkMB5oXbsvPJyKLSF s1wMwtKkEwLUIkiGiK62cNL0XBE2eJdYibbqR37MEAxIS6+W4+gE17lbVNEKlMHm fWZKHbS7kTDF2PxXfyfl6lpeqOkNGsbW3EuDpTktpdq8cAix908hO+6AilduhCmi dkS+iERsjt+19D7VAzH9AxUteoOJz1ZFA4W2Nf6Yv0ZaOHlunUEw3eCJajjJrCD/ AIRpagTBcp2GZd5fP1Kk5ahuFI6jzIOl7RndUBeuT2DR+y6xhDg7F00xWEuoyjsf LbKgipw2Mbm3479nw50oWbqMta51fjaKWmS1PehGp5qv6Ow8ym+oVjYehUD2DHsy 2mc9qpwAZDiByuJFQwhIyQC3bbl5IhOkrnpKJwZMe8Uzb1aFMRjcyZN7hrQBmqSD 8b9Pfb+wD8nk4dZpkH5k+s0VOczW2W0RPkDNFClxckyBSqo4Xrn2FRaMLyRS/Wp4 c3SdlU9+l4f6forTr+Yc =yXy2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4B0ACD3C-613A-4504-A74D-B4DFC120806A-- From nobody Mon Mar 7 13:37:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322AF1CDC0B for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:37:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYYQ-Vyi-njc for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5340D1CDBFD for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88F628B003D; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E611F801E; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7C412C5-87BC-4085-A7EA-4C53916752D9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <130D7372-428C-43D9-86D7-EC6A02F6E096@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:33:56 -0500 Message-Id: <89F5732A-E5CB-4E6C-9967-A26B20B8994D@tislabs.com> References: <729C6843-EFDF-40E4-A89C-BB4904A41F0B@tislabs.com> <130D7372-428C-43D9-86D7-EC6A02F6E096@ripe.net> To: Tim Bruijnzeels X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:37:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E7C412C5-87BC-4085-A7EA-4C53916752D9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Mar 4, 2016, at 5:19 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Hi Sandy, >=20 > Technical question. We plan to submit an update before the cut-off = date - no major overhaul but we have some changes. >=20 > Can we just submit a new version as an official document, or should we = just re-submit this one, and do the update in a week or two? >=20 >=20 I see no benefit to your doing a two-step to get an update submitted. = And I know of no process in the submission tools that would check to see = if the new wg draft was the same as the individual draft. So one submission should work. Let the chairs know if you experience problems. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_E7C412C5-87BC-4085-A7EA-4C53916752D9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW3fPVAAoJEHplpQeet0IZcRAQAK9EclUB0iEI5XRiAXU4vdiu d5xKQO7ezVHYyLB5Eyj+GWr9IuPVlNwjxcYKCqskEv1RMM//kgrX9urIeqZXU35Q L6+gOLCjfXj6z+kcWaKh4NHLbjdCUgpx65VGqHEls2gZpY3qfzUFwIyl2ap5o60g mP/jhYAWw2sfga2LYvQvy/u7TDJ/mxSSUEd0dbwOdpovWV2bu36RhIDMNLFsGPrI 9rW3fQOcrb9xFRNawIMWyIuZy6tGqBi26mHzdZEan60qjOewP0UfYcTWfNwR8mhM IvPLDRsO9K86a8sKBn5vhFZImNyEKopL+jZHkuAQ+cMhRs5gXHjb+yV7Lp0HxoeT iJestPxnYzK9mcORRAs1bzOtfmHWkmEEUunje0KLzfxfTHRga5Z/qbroCYM1/w5k W26D9JEtRy+lQuB3Xu2P2RJkxRCZHD/PDFLycOz1RhM1NF4eFgIOmEb+DDzMD2BF GrMxYr8f6kxxj8pBVe26bn5MGof2FXFENdilq8lTgh1lzVm3dIos3QDZ8bQ73IXQ JeJUVM8i3EXlXcEtIZJl/KZjwv6VDX+wc+YnsmqPDx1LVDFuS3ot8Q7x73pRuMRX 5vEYcYTwWJKUDQS4gYBIPluSnlRqoZgfjsUumY9Getj+UT4adqAk4rUkwlZtfqgW KaPGwIbQDbVBfoRYZo83 =Q6vJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E7C412C5-87BC-4085-A7EA-4C53916752D9-- From madihello@icloud.com Mon Mar 7 17:56:48 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4E01CD885 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:56:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYTTS_CldSwS for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from pv33p07im-ztdg10141401.me.com (pv33p07im-ztdg10141401.me.com [17.142.253.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5911CD890 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.219.38] (unknown [1.8.101.133]) by pv33p07im-ztdg10141401.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.36.0 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0O3P005XD3UH6O20@pv33p07im-ztdg10141401.me.com> for sidr@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:54:21 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-03-08_01:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1510270003 definitions=main-1603080010 From: Declan Ma Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:54:19 +0800 To: sidr MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] adoption of draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 02:07:34 -0000 Hi all, According to the discussions on Adverse Actions draft at IETF Yokohama = meeting and the feedback from the WG mailing list, Steve and I have = removed the text that caused folks concerns relating to mitigation = solutions.=20 I think the updated version of this draft = (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02) is = ready for WG adoption.=20 Chairs, please consider this a formal request to put out an adoption = call. Thanks very much. P.S. This request was posted on 22nd December last year, which I guess a bad = time to catch anybody=A1=AFs attention. So I re-post this message to the = mailing list.=20 Di Ma ZDNS= From nobody Tue Mar 8 23:52:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9EF12DF47; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:52:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160309075253.9424.60991.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:52:53 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:52:53 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure Authors : Geoff Huston George Michaelson Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2016-03-08 Abstract: This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters, asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size, and signature format for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) subscribers that generate digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) signed objects and certification requests as well as for the relying parties (RPs) that verify these digital signatures. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Mar 9 03:32:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B263012DDAD for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:32:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id suX97M4RFxN7 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5653D12D631 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B204828B0041 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:32:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ECF1F801E; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_492DC435-2D68-4D8D-9D78-A6204B8ADD19"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:28:54 -0500 Message-Id: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:32:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_492DC435-2D68-4D8D-9D78-A6204B8ADD19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 As discussed in December, a new version for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis = was required to deal with an IESG comment on the Security Considerations = section. The authors have submitted a new version and ask for a working group = last call. This starts the wglc which will end on 23 Mar 2016. Please review the = draft for its readiness for publication and provide comments to the = list. Positive support is needed in order to judge consensus for publication, = so please do comment on the list. The draft is available at: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_492DC435-2D68-4D8D-9D78-A6204B8ADD19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW4AkNAAoJEHplpQeet0IZcAAP/AyCqomvHB2Y0Hjhx59+WD8c XLx8nyWZPHxVoOuoBNtNQE8fBh1PiR7P15/+LuzOv7OCyy/C5+FSAVn4uq15PlS3 DISd4Wil/zo2nlVZfO77hOt8U6MyC/KzH1OtgXrWX07Ll5TFKooLIBAU57w7fsa5 vgvXBCbfpJWtaMaAayCSMQb481LIDig0aeNrh5I/kJa1SLsQgnvcB1qvV7lTa3Xa lTbDnwzrqf0wggxhbhXSnwPnsrPxXDuSO2mFWP/5aL/N5lyzU6em/fqJ9zV3sEVa LnA8TQcBsBSVbfCSy06iSfSj2VfdD6VS2TjTQlXTMZ1TCJjHwpU6TkR0L/XvbD3+ gPvsULHlUOFQqTIlB9NHRjvw47HHUxbHxAZfY1Sub7v1xYt/PUDVangUfPH3z+eR M8ca1tvW7qcGBl5NsdQMSQiIrFdSj/cSEFjnrcFWBX+21X0nJZ90qWv8d2CoqfX3 +SuVw/5O/w1LQ1yhRwRlZHzbPQo+AYnBNUjnQTCZ6V8r4L4o0paPifx9JrfYS8EE QgPiOUZkRkxJYxC8eWmIcpnUFsha42GOfwrz9pnRPyKeil83bXoZ3HdgTKNJfVbT SKt15A75V/RZJ+GrhnKp/MFCSuxZW2Y0f+XYG553cOLWwAiCAnQFkYMQhW4AwOvT ho69cMujaY8ZTsqhDfeU =MdBQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_492DC435-2D68-4D8D-9D78-A6204B8ADD19-- From nobody Wed Mar 9 18:56:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F7D12DAE3 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:56:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 rU9BFXJkjWBG for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 D61FA12DB4D for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id g203so90479354iof.2 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:55:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=LpUZjplbkDSYZykKdHC2UKpubbJ1B5MUioKgMqpWADo=; b=aVicQjBnz+hZwWFgFK+RlQGAbvuIwc1nBldINVT7i25OKKTJF/LJ8p5bgK/9MMsLSh zO+BdKPLIc9jYeLw2lez63V+SJyehfEpb9kDs8Sfoh0mBCXkBlW2vePDWR91syzwfJMp OupYt2TAuv8aVzr2XBZxDuLHUcv+5qGNTTZN8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=LpUZjplbkDSYZykKdHC2UKpubbJ1B5MUioKgMqpWADo=; b=axVNmyKPsjGSHdEpfKBdjbFCSifYWHRU8hKbzm/Ckc5GncV77k/1uZetJ3M0tLZqtf zsCKFkbigco+SHwpOn05PsetoYiHxYU4kC548Yj6w/IcEtvbONkYrTzamWYa1R8zKIvw 8gSezOOH6nKln37OK8i49VWckTPp7CMGClHbFj8IgKkXlBoV9fD8mUd3gQNAp529Nks7 zL+H0JjaVZ77PBpJ9/ICIWanYZNgNs3u8XWbrSSPlYBfRrN+Jc7QN7lqAoBc9bX6nbQX xt1CpTUcme7HPXjesbNcWidvJnd50OGpAA7eO4Kh6d1bjvUfIfhDXHqy9eWiQ/4l1urj vJvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL5OgcTkid8H/VGFQyBierfVMR/c2zJEDSvRdW/37hSxQt8o9vjs4pUGbYCivv5wQ== X-Received: by 10.107.34.70 with SMTP id i67mr1051184ioi.39.1457578556334; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [5.5.33.232] (vpn.snozzages.com. [204.42.252.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 203sm720187ioo.30.2016.03.09.18.55.54 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:55:55 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5522CA9D-F591-4FB6-8887-6245C1611CFE@sn3rd.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:55:48 +0900 To: sidr list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] comments on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:56:04 -0000 Off-list, Rob correctly pointed out that there are two PKCS#10-related = issues that are not describedt; both arise from requirements for BGPsec = certificate extensions: 1) SIA extension is forbidden in BGPsec certificates. =20 2) EKU extension is required in BGPsec certificates with a particular = value. Now we have a couple of options: a) say nothing and rely on the CA doing the right thing b) prohibit/require SIA/EKU (respectively) be present in the PKCS#10 c) For: * SIA - allow SIA in the PKCS #10 and rely on the CA to discards it and = issue a properly formed certificate. * EKU - allow EKU but not require EKU in the PKCS #10; if present, the = EKU must have the correct OID. I=E2=80=99m partial to option c because it seems like the pragmatic = approach. Thoughts? spt= From nobody Thu Mar 10 05:56:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F65B12D869; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:56:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160310135647.10032.69598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:56:47 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:56:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures Authors : Robert Kisteleki Brian Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2016-03-10 Abstract: This document describes a method to allow parties to electronically sign Routing Policy Specification Language objects and validate such electronic signatures. This allows relying parties to detect accidental or malicious modifications on such objects. It also allows parties who run Internet Routing Registries or similar databases, but do not yet have Routing Policy System Security-based authentication of the maintainers of certain objects, to verify that the additions or modifications of such database objects are done by the legitimate holder(s) of the Internet resources mentioned in those objects. This document updates RFC 2622 and RFC 4012 to add the signature attribute to supported RPSL objects. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Mar 11 09:05:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CE012D9B0 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:05:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Orqlwt8ijrbK for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97D2C12D9AD for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDCD28B0041 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:05:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E616F1F8035; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:05:41 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_04CCB022-DBCE-4EA9-83AC-E0015428B9FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Sandra Murphy Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:05:42 -0500 Message-Id: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> To: sidr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:05:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_04CCB022-DBCE-4EA9-83AC-E0015428B9FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb18030 This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt = this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state = whether you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will = review and comment on the work. The draft is available at = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 =A1=AASandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_04CCB022-DBCE-4EA9-83AC-E0015428B9FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW4vrmAAoJEHplpQeet0IZJnsQAJiuTyuLmYWMWDJE+M/8UEI1 WbW9TqlMK90yQvwN5bQkPmCSqzPZkBv1POW6OCgdRKr2Rk9pblItHbXxYi1In+z5 0x2B502kB/wlf598+SmydUWsxe5cVS1xhn+05HMHvTpB4uRIPRFAb7aFU1PVC7RB TANPkvayTxXPo6ueADhfjSDYGj5f4XV2UcoVZuzzbR9WELuJkDQDAcVAHQMiukG6 /ufZPRUqGhG5HVDL94JzJBqLBNtWO3m3ufTaN2rVguhjBYohpg8m8RxeT2n0DwD2 YCeSAGUPnQ4HROwaytsXmAXr4qkbQBjtfZmbc1jSvf+3XNS8btZzeRhCJKW49rw9 +ZBzhSS8m6Ad0FFVBkNDZzlV88UGRBanSh9XxN+IRIDIywUWrIoWWXT7KxUIo2DW PxgqeNpPFi/upcXAEfXLlZB8yvhSCbOMAM9Kcj5y72sxAJ0Cgt+r8CvVKqDYtt8L MFPu3qaOjjK5tfc+iS6i+axEy12b8jiKHcdaqOQqusFdvi81cMbhkw62CehrlfoA b7L1kpcsNbGvjuyh6ocz9dpeNyhaE2XvzsCLZFQu5x/o3UlKOiXjiUGVDgeKyNK1 M4BIJwl9v5iwY+/O+Q2xY2nHZ8DkCwsM/B5VBBiLEmjnq1+IpSc1VHozzKhatipu NhktsRpTrbRGpfC02PuS =+TBb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_04CCB022-DBCE-4EA9-83AC-E0015428B9FB-- From nobody Fri Mar 11 10:25:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC42012D7E8 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:25:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 utqzRGIszmVM for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E83E12D657 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:52461 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1aeRku-000Oyp-Qn for sidr@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:25:44 -0500 To: sidr@ietf.org References: <5522CA9D-F591-4FB6-8887-6245C1611CFE@sn3rd.com> From: Stephen Kent Message-ID: <56E30DA9.50708@bbn.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:25:45 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5522CA9D-F591-4FB6-8887-6245C1611CFE@sn3rd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] comments on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:25:53 -0000 Sean, Thanks for catching this omission. I think option C is OK, if the text explains the rationale, as you have. Steve > Off-list, Rob correctly pointed out that there are two PKCS#10-related issues that are not describedt; both arise from requirements for BGPsec certificate extensions: > > 1) SIA extension is forbidden in BGPsec certificates. > > 2) EKU extension is required in BGPsec certificates with a particular value. > > Now we have a couple of options: > > a) say nothing and rely on the CA doing the right thing > > b) prohibit/require SIA/EKU (respectively) be present in the PKCS#10 > > c) For: > > * SIA - allow SIA in the PKCS #10 and rely on the CA to discards it and issue a properly formed certificate. > > * EKU - allow EKU but not require EKU in the PKCS #10; if present, the EKU must have the correct OID. > > I’m partial to option c because it seems like the pragmatic approach. > > Thoughts? > > spt > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Fri Mar 11 15:05:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D4E12DD5B; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:05:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160311230526.15028.49368.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:05:26 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] sidr - Requested sessions have been scheduled for IETF 95 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:05:28 -0000 Dear Sandra Murphy, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. sidr Session 1 (1:30:00) Wednesday, Afternoon Session I 1400-1600 Room Name: Buen Ayre A size: 125 --------------------------------------------- sidr Session 2 (1:30:00) Monday, Afternoon Session I 1400-1530 Room Name: Atlantico B size: 125 --------------------------------------------- Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Sandra Murphy Number of Sessions: 2 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours, 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 90 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: opsec idr grow saag rtgwg rtgarea Second Priority: dane i2rs isis spring trill Third Priority: trans Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Mar 11 18:00:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CE612DA5F for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 zDbA3ocgy8Ch for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9586012DA4E for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aeYqo-000621-Oi; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 02:00:19 +0000 Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:00:17 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <5522CA9D-F591-4FB6-8887-6245C1611CFE@sn3rd.com> References: <5522CA9D-F591-4FB6-8887-6245C1611CFE@sn3rd.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Cc: sidr list Subject: Re: [sidr] comments on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 02:00:23 -0000 > a) say nothing and rely on the CA doing the right thing and how has that worked out? heck, it does not always work out when clearly specified. At Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:55:48 +0900, Sean Turner wrote: > * SIA - allow SIA in the PKCS #10 and rely on the CA to discards it > and issue a properly formed certificate. > > * EKU - allow EKU but not require EKU in the PKCS #10; if present, the > EKU must have the correct OID. if eku missing in pkcs#10, put correct eku in cert, and issue randy From nobody Tue Mar 15 04:48:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A565112D998; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 04:48:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.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 zGhQ1H0mXA76; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 04:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gcc01-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cy1gcc01on0100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.200.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900E712D511; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 04:48:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=09//Z5yXT0Z6ln8u8S7gRHjCQmbWU/uM6QoQvVIUNAA=; b=UUVwlvjLi5pbsy+RB3eiqw7xQCni6DxFaeClVfM5KvIklRYOBAIHVrldcm2dJjMcICss/DQzpZSifO+LBFsu+HjVYb1d5CHGg8/hSK+6lRabjFgruLKUjz4IVhLnRS/CKyZoYB9DixYvuWukljntWN+H1ZrOhBCVQcJTTqNMj3g= Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.143) by CY1PR09MB0796.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.434.16; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:48:27 +0000 Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) by CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) with mapi id 15.01.0434.016; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:48:27 +0000 From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" To: IDR , sidr wg list Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHRfmq9jR1rsDByzU2rfNRIdonxmp9aYi5W Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160315032823.16795.31687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160315032823.16795.31687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov; x-originating-ip: [129.6.222.4] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0331b740-d91b-4031-5a58-08d34cc7b8f0 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR09MB0796; 5:NkM5vrAY1HhbYQz1x/AiDp2eQ8rQLZ2e3essb2/jaRKrakUec5qEfUOhNsjZ5+j0bZd/np9HEw2M033ilIX3VtfDIuPMyjZELm+oPSnOtgKalH6VrcDY2yQoDH146qb/N7A//VGpLRt1i46SIdxmsg==; 24:jBryFVIJiy+VV+gkPw96ga5yN8UTYrd0rAtuLq983or/J9jy/17j8olNTStACJXovVk0fgx3ehB5hj7RqWZ1bU1mjkUTBtsSXF//Mmo4x8U= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR09MB0796; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:CY1PR09MB0796; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0796; x-forefront-prvs: 08828D20BC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(377424004)(1096002)(54356999)(5008740100001)(3846002)(2900100001)(15975445007)(74316001)(5004730100002)(11100500001)(230783001)(107886002)(50986999)(2950100001)(15650500001)(450100001)(10400500002)(102836003)(1220700001)(77096005)(6116002)(2906002)(76176999)(122556002)(586003)(81166005)(33656002)(106116001)(5001770100001)(3280700002)(76576001)(5003600100002)(87936001)(3660700001)(19580405001)(66066001)(3900700001)(5002640100001)(99286002)(92566002)(19580395003)(189998001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0796; H:CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2016 11:48:27.2927 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR09MB0796 Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:48:30 -0000 Cross posting this message on IDR and SIDR lists. This submission ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-det= ection-mitigation-02 ) is an updated version and it reflects the following changes: 1. It is now synced up with the revised set of route-leak types in the lat= est definition draft [draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04]. See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definit= ion-04 =20 2. Thought it would be useful to comment on combining the results of route-leak detection, origin validation, and BGPsec (path) v= alidation (when BGPsec is used in the future) for path selection decision. Hence, added the new subsection 5.2 under =93Design Rationale and Discussio= n=94 section. 3. Made editorial changes throughout to improve clarity/presentation. 4. Section 5 continues to capture key comments, questions and discussion. Further comments/suggestions/critique welcome. Sriram =20 ________________________________________ From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:28 PM To: Brian Dickson; Montgomery, Douglas (Fed); Keyur Patel; Andrei Robachevs= ky; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-m= itigation-02.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Kotikalapudi Sriram and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation Revision: 02 Title: Methods for Detection and Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks Document date: 2016-03-14 Group: idr Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-l= eak-detection-mitigation-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-= detection-mitigation/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detec= tion-mitigation-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-idr-route-le= ak-detection-mitigation-02 Abstract: In [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition], the authors have provided a definition of the route leak problem, and also enumerated several types of route leaks. In this document, we first examine which of those route-leak types are detected and mitigated by the existing origin validation (OV) [RFC 6811]. It is recognized that OV offers a limited detection and mitigation capability against route leaks. This document proposes an enhancement that significantly extends the route-leak detection and mitigation capabilities of BGP. The solution involves carrying a per-hop route-leak protection (RLP) field in BGP updates. The RLP field is proposed be carried in an optional transitive path attribute. The solution is meant to be initially implemented as an enhancement of BGP without requiring BGPsec [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. However, when BGPsec is deployed in the future, the solution can be incorporated in BGPsec, enabling cryptographic protection for the RLP field. That would be one way of implementing the proposed solution in a secure way. It is not claimed that the solution detects all possible types of route leaks but it detects several types, especially considering some significant route-leak occurrences that have been observed in recent years. The document also includes a stopgap method for detection and mitigation of route leaks for an intermediate phase when OV is deployed but BGP protocol on the wire is unchanged. From nobody Wed Mar 16 02:36:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E917D12D636; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:36:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Z_abnkiHmioA; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F076012D77F; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 8E82E236EE6CE; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:36:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 9B6CCD68D1BCA; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:36:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id u2G9ZVnu036017; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:35:31 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:35:42 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2016-03-16 17:35:12, Serialize complete at 2016-03-16 17:35:12 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0034B18A48257F78_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn u2G9ZVnu036017 Archived-At: Cc: sidr , sidr , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:36:13 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0034B18A48257F78_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KDQoic2lkciIgPHNpZHItYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4g0LTT2iAyMDE2LzAz LzEyIDAxOjA1OjQyOg0KDQo+IFRoaXMgc3RhcnRzIGFuIGFkb3B0aW9uIGNhbGwgZm9yIGRyYWZ0 LWtlbnQtc2lkci1hZHZlcnNlLWFjdGlvbnMtMDIuDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCBvbiB0 aGUgbGlzdCBpZiB5b3UgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBzaG91bGQgDQo+IGFkb3B0 IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0uICBUaGUgYWRvcHRpb24gY2FsbCB3aWxsIGVuZCAy NSBNYXIgDQoyMDE2Lg0KPiANCj4gUmVtZW1iZXIgdGhhdCBwb3NpdGl2ZSBzdXBwb3J0IGlzIG5l ZWRlZCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24uIFBsZWFzZSBzdGF0ZSANCj4gd2hldGhlciB5b3UgYmVsaWV2ZSB0 aGUgd29yayBzaG91bGQgYmUgYWRvcHRlZCBhbmQgd2hldGhlciB5b3Ugd2lsbCANCj4gcmV2aWV3 IGFuZCBjb21tZW50IG9uIHRoZSB3b3JrLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBh dCBodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQta2VudC0NCj4gc2lkci1hZHZlcnNl LWFjdGlvbnMtMDINCj4gDQo+IKGqU2FuZHksIHNwZWFraW5nIGFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgd2cgY28t Y2hhaXJzDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHNpZHIgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHNpZHJAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zaWRyDQoNCg== --=_alternative 0034B18A48257F78_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlN1cHBvcnQuPGJyPg0KPC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj48dHQ+JnF1b3Q7c2lkciZxdW90OyAmbHQ7c2lkci1i b3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnJmd0OyDQtNPaDQoyMDE2LzAzLzEyIDAxOjA1OjQyOjxicj4NCjxicj4N CiZndDsgVGhpcyBzdGFydHMgYW4gYWRvcHRpb24gY2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQta2VudC1zaWRyLWFk dmVyc2UtYWN0aW9ucy0wMi48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgb24g dGhlIGxpc3QgaWYgeW91IGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgc2hvdWxkDQo8YnI+DQom Z3Q7IGFkb3B0IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0uICZuYnNwO1RoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBj YWxsIHdpbGwgZW5kDQoyNSBNYXIgMjAxNi48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgUmVtZW1iZXIg dGhhdCBwb3NpdGl2ZSBzdXBwb3J0IGlzIG5lZWRlZCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24uIFBsZWFzZSBzdGF0 ZQ0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSB3b3JrIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhZG9w dGVkIGFuZCB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSB3aWxsDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHJldmlldyBhbmQgY29tbWVudCBv biB0aGUgd29yay48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgVGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBh dCBodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQta2VudC08YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHNpZHIt YWR2ZXJzZS1hY3Rpb25zLTAyPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IKGqU2FuZHksIHNwZWFraW5n IGFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgd2cgY28tY2hhaXJzPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZn dDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fXzxicj4NCiZndDsgc2lkciBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHNpZHJAaWV0Zi5vcmc8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2lkcjxicj4N CjwvdHQ+PC9mb250Pg0K --=_alternative 0034B18A48257F78_=-- From nobody Wed Mar 16 13:03:18 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A679D12D6AA for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 5cUk2RT3pikD for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adrilankha.hactrn.net (adrilankha.hactrn.net [IPv6:2001:418:1::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C94F12D695 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by adrilankha.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A55C417018 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676293DA51E4 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:03:08 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20160316200308.676293DA51E4@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:03:17 -0000 I have read this draft, support adoption, and will review. From nobody Wed Mar 16 20:34:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E64F12D534; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:34:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160317033426.32144.28355.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:34:26 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:34:26 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : BGPsec Protocol Specification Authors : Matthew Lepinski Kotikalapudi Sriram Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2016-03-16 Abstract: This document describes BGPsec, an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides security for the path of autonomous systems through which a BGP update message passes. BGPsec is implemented via a new optional non-transitive BGP path attribute that carries a digital signature produced by each autonomous system that propagates the update message. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Mar 16 20:41:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFDB12DB15; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 gI2dFXmUuLIt; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (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 82AB912DB16; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-x235.google.com with SMTP id fp4so71550629obb.2; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=png79JjWNIxoQ8Ax5sqjsAAp1ZnK2cNWvD1UBhPLuFI=; b=YR5Uue1psMjM08XRaIlNJ1o+1Ujy7gBVke26dWq4uaEnCpox7kWnurkop9gnHdi42y IDXuoJ059InLlbOMlf6xY6jmOOWV2SxR+cxjDuGQtzDmuZRTwsbJoVz3L2M20dw4ivZZ /hD/LylSe3i7xQcMxBPVsNX3DbZ3BwO2dtPjFQbb8JstfP0gbqDApSZcQRMCX+Faw52R 5lc96JXMfcqarvD2RbbZg5oy9YXo96FUeDGvLxW9nPuuY13bQ+kk1F4ziRXmzLS2NbW0 kBJsB5iMj4oQJYgM6nV2O0uvzBGZtM6i6LiBL4++ktSyXR5ofDiMKKU/+EFFXzXHBWRC J0cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=png79JjWNIxoQ8Ax5sqjsAAp1ZnK2cNWvD1UBhPLuFI=; b=Dzp5CvAxo60X8HylXV30DccdOILc5aCztK2v051SRUIdqwCW5F6ffqw2uf/OXWY9Ib NGrLn0/OtTug8G/jV3+3k7GqXLXgst2VUiNADCmiW7tL7VlAhg6m3h3MIDWlYezIUk9s 2h3CYuGNCDLTCoGM6kUmAfzSVnY3xD24UUABV6MVJicUDZ1H/5jJCnW/reTbOWNIZyz6 iWv7Dj+vVvrjiK0nAkENE8gnDlDGLOr6kr3IFlDhdANOur48NJ3olDNAejAfEg6/6Njz 0Mj8Q+mjbXurQZrwBxJJIlCURO/s1Buisl9V4L6UF3XyDnAIjkf4UQOoNnJKebD2nmUe Y0Hw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJbCvKJ6qhJ4W9F5ip5JR0BplpAn/Oui/6N28tsM+aRmfDKZ0uIrEF0yNLMCk7rz40nZr2W8wgqJAd5NQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.93.162 with SMTP id cv2mr4675987oeb.28.1458186047984; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.205.202 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:40:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Matthew Lepinski To: "sidr@ietf.org" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d2e6681a92052e366552 Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] New Version : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:40:51 -0000 --047d7b33d2e6681a92052e366552 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I have posted a new version (-15) of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec. The only normative change is the re-ordering requested by Oliver based on his implementation experience: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/8B_e4CNxQCUKeZ_AUzsdnn2f5MU The only other changes are fixing some nits and editorial changes requested by members of the working group. - Matt Lepinski --047d7b33d2e6681a92052e366552 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have posted a new version (-15) of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpse= c.

The only normative change is the re-ordering requested by Oliver= based on his implementation experience:=C2=A0https://mailarchive.i= etf.org/arch/msg/sidr/8B_e4CNxQCUKeZ_AUzsdnn2f5MU

<= div>The only other changes are fixing some nits and editorial changes reque= sted by members of the working group.

- Matt Lepin= ski
--047d7b33d2e6681a92052e366552-- From nobody Thu Mar 17 06:33:49 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FC812D947 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 mVQDv0fqyEzf for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE3A12D942 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A08128B003D; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84261F801E; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Sandra Murphy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:41 -0400 Message-Id: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:33:48 -0000 This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15. =20 The draft is available at = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15. Please respond with your opinion of the draft=92s readiness for = publication. Remember that positive replies are needed, so please do provide comments = to the list. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs= From nobody Sat Mar 19 21:06:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AD912D573 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:06:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5PYyhe8NpZHp for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9B112D523 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LENOVO95E6383C (unknown [218.241.103.123]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0DZ4DjNIe5W1aZOCQ--.53401S2; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:06:37 +0800 (CST) From: "Linlin Zhou" To: "'Sandra Murphy'" , "'sidr'" References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:06:37 +0800 Message-ID: <025201d1825d$e6812dd0$b3838970$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdF7uEc/5gqeNYBgRkmUeRDTKKwO1gGpTm5Q Content-Language: zh-cn X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0DZ4DjNIe5W1aZOCQ--.53401S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWruFW3Wr1rJrykWFy5Jr17Awb_yoWDGrbE9w s8CFyfJ39xJa1xKw4Uur45trZYqrWagasIyFWUXr42y3s5A34qgrWvqFZ3Za45X3yj9rn8 G3s3Jw1rCry3GjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUb2AYjsxI4VWxJwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8CjxkF64kEwVA0rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUCVW8JwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0 cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r4UJVWxJr1l84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4UJVWxJr1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG64xv F2IEw4CE5I8CrVC2j2WlYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r 4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxGrwCY02Avz4vE14v_Gryl42xK 82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGw C20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48J MIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMI IF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY 6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jziihUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 04:06:46 -0000 This draft looks good to me. I think this work is going to help establish threat model in RPKI operations. So support to be adopted as WG document. Regards, Linlin > -----Original Message----- > From: sidr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Sandra Murphy > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 1:06 AM > To: sidr > Cc: Sandra Murphy > Subject: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 > > This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. > > Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt this > draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. > > Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether > you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and > comment on the work. > > The draft is available at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 > > -Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs > From nobody Mon Mar 21 05:49:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5343912D780; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:49:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321124948.31928.41888.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:49:48 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:49:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : RPKI Repository Delta Protocol Authors : Tim Bruijnzeels Oleg Muravskiy Bryan Weber Rob Austein David Mandelberg Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), certificate authorities publish certificates, including end entity certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL), and RPKI signed objects to repositories. Relying Parties (RP) retrieve the published information from those repositories. This document specifies a delta protocol which provides relying parties with a mechanism to query a repository for incremental updates, thus enabling the RP to keep its state in sync with the repository. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 06:02:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D6E12D780; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:02:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 lk1EOkbb341T; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net (mahimahi.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E415812D70F; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ahzTV-0007CO-TN; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:02:27 +0100 Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-155.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ahzTV-00064b-NN; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:02:25 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <20160321124948.31928.41888.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:02:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3CBAE1FA-F12D-47E3-A2BD-855DE69DCF9C@ripe.net> References: <20160321124948.31928.41888.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07199e1c77edd349afaa99f354520a132a92 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:02:41 -0000 Dear working group, We updated this document following discussion at the last IETF and based = on experience in implementation. Changes: =3D The "hash" attribute in the update notification file is back =3D Publication Server is now allowed to aggregate changes from multiple = CAs in a single delta (when implementing we found that we need to avoid having a huge = number of deltas so the notification file can be small) =3D Reworded text - hoping to make it more readable. Let us know if it = works for you. Thanks Tim > On 21 Mar 2016, at 13:49, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the = IETF. >=20 > Title : RPKI Repository Delta Protocol > Authors : Tim Bruijnzeels > Oleg Muravskiy > Bryan Weber > Rob Austein > David Mandelberg > Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2016-03-21 >=20 > Abstract: > In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), certificate > authorities publish certificates, including end entity certificates, > Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL), and RPKI signed objects to > repositories. Relying Parties (RP) retrieve the published > information from those repositories. This document specifies a = delta > protocol which provides relying parties with a mechanism to query a > repository for incremental updates, thus enabling the RP to keep its > state in sync with the repository. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Mon Mar 21 06:16:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F4912D815; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:16:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321131616.31949.27476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:16:16 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:16:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered Authors : Geoff Huston George Michaelson Carlos M. Martinez Tim Bruijnzeels Andrew Lee Newton Alain Aina Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document proposes and alternative to the certificate validation procedure specified in RFC6487 that reduces aspects of operational fragility in the management of certificates in the RPKI. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 06:26:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACF212D823; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:26:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 Is7_aOYHZh9S; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590A312D82C; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ahzqL-0001ET-EK; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:26:02 +0100 Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-155.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ahzqL-0000D0-7N; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:26:01 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <20160321131616.31949.27476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:26:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <78993399-81AA-46E7-B435-FF183766477A@ripe.net> References: <20160321131616.31949.27476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a071926dca8d090d2ae9b7d9501cbbe30d692 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:26:14 -0000 Dear working group, The actual proposal did not change with this version. But following = earlier discussion and confusion, this version has been re-worded to = explain the proposal from a different angle. We hope this helps. = Comments welcome of course. Kind regards, Tim > On 21 Mar 2016, at 14:16, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the = IETF. >=20 > Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered > Authors : Geoff Huston > George Michaelson > Carlos M. Martinez > Tim Bruijnzeels > Andrew Lee Newton > Alain Aina > Filename : = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-03.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2016-03-21 >=20 > Abstract: > This document proposes and alternative to the certificate validation > procedure specified in RFC6487 that reduces aspects of operational > fragility in the management of certificates in the RPKI. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconside= red/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-0= 3 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-recons= idered-03 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Mon Mar 21 11:00:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4FB12D9D2; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:00:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321180031.31949.99113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:00:31 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:00:31 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests Authors : Mark Reynolds Sean Turner Stephen Kent Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates used to enable validation of Autonomous System (AS) paths in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as part of an extension to that protocol known as BGPsec. BGP is the standard for inter-domain routing in the Internet; it is the "glue" that holds the Internet together. BGPsec is being developed as one component of a solution that addresses the requirement to provide security for BGP. The goal of BGPsec is to provide full AS path validation based on the use of strong cryptographic primitives. The end-entity (EE) certificates specified by this profile are issued (to routers within an Autonomous System). Each of these certificates is issued under a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certification Authority (CA) certificate. These CA certificates and EE certificates both contain the AS Identifier Delegation extension. An EE certificate of this type asserts that the router(s) holding the corresponding private key are authorized to emit secure route advertisements on behalf of the AS(es) specified in the certificate. This document also profiles the format of certification requests, and specifies Relying Party (RP) certificate path validation procedures for these EE certificates. This document extends the RPKI; therefore, this documents updates the RPKI Resource Certificates Profile (RFC 6487). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 11:08:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7AE12D935 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 XIIKJ4cyW-dN for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (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 D268912D83C for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id y89so159430155qge.2 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ejVLGg+/qbF13DtTndhznnOg4p9pbZAbgGv1PojpMfU=; b=BMXO/fJB2yJw79t+TzYrbuioBDUygVV05g+yDXdJMGfXXGNMlbOrel26E27WuKaype LQc4sPCrEh47iLUBtav5dI61jQqHGjmMs0rU1nbmM5mP0Wz1zRhQvidO8ThW2S/RkaYp J2i39PzLbzZaJBAq1O+GyirPu1bffEOS9BwGs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ejVLGg+/qbF13DtTndhznnOg4p9pbZAbgGv1PojpMfU=; b=CiB/65IFYME0frtR5LezZK2Tc/X5zSBls4NQag/02dSXLxS1OPNgLAHwYL4opEu26X GaLu7A6gsq4Zt/E/3EgDGrnuAuALHyczuVtF6k9s1saPXwiYlCyKvfCXkkYz466LZBsK ATkykmL4Qyp6+Kd0U8otUlB/kXm8Qlir0X4xvLieoD9xvWpG8MVaLYVBpi+6NgsaCh+t TTg8OdFNpitLcM1w4CfSXmaKdCfPG83T2LbR4LWtFWNVQwZBeIEURWU1/PnLUxxXbXSI woaGRILyslcw7eKvpxvCggnazMc5N0RHLfT9a/idLm/LMqCyTuSd5cN+yiKg+Kf5urGZ A8lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIwzwBiPrn6t8w5Ue3ttBXB/+V+4f+RN56fBOIT0a9gn05kHIoZ3m8FNKEAZp7zIQ== X-Received: by 10.140.230.207 with SMTP id a198mr44756447qhc.94.1458583714905; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.112] ([96.231.217.211]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t10sm12647659qhc.13.2016.03.21.11.08.34 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <20160321180031.31949.99113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:08:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <857C3D49-6B72-4342-BBFE-9DF9DA25D956@sn3rd.com> References: <20160321180031.31949.99113.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: sidr list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:08:45 -0000 This version includes changes to the BGPsec Router Certificate request = section as well as the Design Notes section to address including the = SIA/EKU extensions in requests. After looking at it, I also added = something about Basic Constraints - CA=E2=80=99s do the right thing and = only issue EE certificates. I also noted a internal reference was wrong = so I corrected. Comments welcome. spt > On Mar 21, 2016, at 14:00, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the = IETF. >=20 > Title : A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, = Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests > Authors : Mark Reynolds > Sean Turner > Stephen Kent > Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-16.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2016-03-21 >=20 From nobody Mon Mar 21 12:21:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B0712D8DA; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:21:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321192138.12259.19485.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:21:38 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:21:39 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : BGPsec Router Certificate Rollover Authors : Roque Gagliano Keyur Patel Brian Weis Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: BGPsec will need to address the impact from regular and emergency rollover processes for the BGPsec End-Entity (EE) certificates that will be performed by Certificate Authorities (CAs) participating at the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). Rollovers of BGPsec EE certificates must be carefully managed in order to synchronize distribution of router public keys and the usage of those pubic keys by BGPsec routers. This document provides general recommendations for that process, as well as describing reasons why the rollover of BGPsec EE certificates might be necessary. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 12:25:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90F512DAAB for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 RHkinarlfVBq for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 421FA12D9F0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2200; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458588265; x=1459797865; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+wYu5TjLpDGcUoqWBLgnZNPIw1DS628/mq5D0zFTMFQ=; b=nADbpVRLBammNcNk1AF+LLWjoeQt6q7PsnIrRULqYQwT8dff00H0nB0v JswbubUWljbDQVLFHJJFjqXjcjOpKPatJ+XmoTfN93/wbckoFvG9/CInF NqpIQc/a5ICGZXduKwFdn66T86lK4R0Ie9DpijhQM63l3Sh5Uf0U9mztg 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQAgArSvBW/4gNJK1bA4MzU3IGuh4BD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFwFwqFbAKBLTgUAQEBAQEBAWQcC4RCAQEDAQEBATc0GwIBCDYQJwslAgQTiB8?= =?us-ascii?q?IDr5hAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFYgRglGEDBEBHCMmgmSCKwWXVwGFc?= =?us-ascii?q?IJyhSGBZUuDf4hYjwUBHgEBQoNlaohUNH4BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,373,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="250123527" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Mar 2016 19:24:08 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (xch-rtp-002.cisco.com [64.101.220.142]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2LJO7nf009614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:24:08 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (64.101.220.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:24:07 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:24:07 -0400 From: "Brian Weis (bew)" To: "sidr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHRg6c8AmOgybzzm0CSpUgbXhfsIQ== Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:24:07 +0000 Message-ID: <5E1E7E86-8E89-4FBF-AD72-E9EEF1F44CCC@cisco.com> References: <20160321192138.12259.19485.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160321192138.12259.19485.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: [10.19.191.168] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7A85ACEF74A8AF4E8500A17585175FF5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:25:10 -0000 This revision is a restore the document as a live draft. There are no subst= antive changes. Brian On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:21 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. >=20 > Title : BGPsec Router Certificate Rollover > Authors : Roque Gagliano > Keyur Patel > Brian Weis > Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2016-03-21 >=20 > Abstract: > BGPsec will need to address the impact from regular and emergency > rollover processes for the BGPsec End-Entity (EE) certificates that > will be performed by Certificate Authorities (CAs) participating at > the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). Rollovers of BGPsec > EE certificates must be carefully managed in order to synchronize > distribution of router public keys and the usage of those pubic keys > by BGPsec routers. This document provides general recommendations > for that process, as well as describing reasons why the rollover of > BGPsec EE certificates might be necessary. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-05 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr --=20 Brian Weis Security, CSG, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: bew@cisco.com From nobody Mon Mar 21 13:29:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF7C12D71C; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321202905.12223.80754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:29:05 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:29:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : RPKI Certificate Tree Validation by a Relying Party Tool Authors : Oleg Muravskiy Tim Bruijnzeels Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document currently describes the approach to validate the content of the RPKI certificate tree, as used by the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator. This approach is independent of a particular object retrieval mechanism. This allows it to be used with repositories available over the rsync protocol, the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol, and repositories that use a mix of both. This algorithm does not rely on content of repository directories, but uses the Authority Key Identifier (AKI) field of a manifest and a certificate revocation list (CRL) objects to discover manifest and CRL objects issued by a particular Certificate Authority (CA). It further uses the hashes of manifest entries to discover other objects issued by the CA. If the working group finds that algorithm outlined here is useful for other implementations, we may either update future revisions of this document to be less specific to the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator implementation, or we may use this document as a starting point of a generic validation document and keep this as a detailed description of the actual RIPE NCC RPKI Validator implementation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 14:20:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB1C12DB60 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7YbG7Y-iU1Qc for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D014712DB84 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D33B28B003D for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378E21F801E; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D41F442-0363-44D4-8442-AA06C3E02DB8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:20:17 -0400 Message-Id: References: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> To: sidr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:20:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6D41F442-0363-44D4-8442-AA06C3E02DB8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 A nagging reminder. There has been no comment, pro or con. It=92s a short draft. Please do review and say whether you want the = draft to progress or not. If you want to see the differences in this latest version, one way is to = look at the tools page for the draft: draft page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 side-by-side diff: = https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05.txt =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chair On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > As discussed in December, a new version for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis = was required to deal with an IESG comment on the Security Considerations = section. >=20 > The authors have submitted a new version and ask for a working group = last call. >=20 > This starts the wglc which will end on 23 Mar 2016. Please review the = draft for its readiness for publication and provide comments to the = list. >=20 > Positive support is needed in order to judge consensus for = publication, so please do comment on the list. >=20 > The draft is available at: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05. >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr --Apple-Mail=_6D41F442-0363-44D4-8442-AA06C3E02DB8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW8GWSAAoJEHplpQeet0IZG/AQALk2OCjwqMEZDrONFRcYpedz zgQo0w8ShvDgCfqtSeO3ADN6K8FdBaLOUyHtG/Iu5xPZqz7vTgOMhm0CGnyyVCqT RzjfSnEiBvJmDRLXYDSLkWqlAlFSfaVdYNON7wH4Sy3TCVnnaiTCiyiMlbnxP64x lKXmbpzj/eCv3fYLEHgntWlegC/1myzM5/0gDmgXPmfzoWg/a/XvJvInz3QGqTOz YrXbHX7WQ9UsMhboT5rrVFfoblYgbUxzAsKVVuXu86T6IKs1H4ZvBvQl5JxpPBke 54UK0IUiGjQ9fyR800EWj/U8IjUhFdQOyEyCO8bZ04S7EoYcDj3hz4yxivbQmU2g snkXvglkjqr97YQoEHfI4uk9OHzroh+4doWfyWg7n2FyQVtKq0/nqjSPFcGQhmzK lAAdis3WAvk0hKaa1l1DL1fBW2ZQOyvprU5yQd4+XpdKXaVtTvMvJwpI5NURrY3t VW/A82rquzm8N1Yk+25WoBPo8kFtE88IOZAJW1Cl6jn5QB70cN8EMnxGy+nHwIo5 6jES+EHh6YS7V6YWAP/tRRymE+SHLcU1McHNoIPA/Cr1drBWjknwZpGrcNGOB8jT AxsrZ4lSpe2dP3/bRJdnun/uVA75jXZtV9vza8nu+uXAqNfMKH+8GScZ8sTUWopp exlxmp168X3nrTDq35H7 =1oYp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6D41F442-0363-44D4-8442-AA06C3E02DB8-- From nobody Mon Mar 21 15:38:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D8D12D101; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 CPJdhVikgDGo; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9266F12D163; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from titi.ripe.net ([193.0.23.11]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ai8Sj-000Atk-KY; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:38:15 +0100 Received: from dog.ripe.net ([193.0.1.217] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by titi.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ai8Si-0002n3-Ax; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:38:12 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Oleg Muravskiy In-Reply-To: <20160321202905.12223.80754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:38:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20160321202905.12223.80754.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: / X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -0.2 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-RIPE-Signature: c408758d4ce2e8eb06762a65a3365b745f51068bd3836192bc0815672f9bd3e5 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:38:26 -0000 This is a WG-adopted version of the previous individual submission ID = draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-02. It includes feedback = submitted so far, and some sections that were missing in the previous = version. Please read and comment! Oleg On 21 Mar 2016, at 21:29, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the = IETF. >=20 > Title : RPKI Certificate Tree Validation by a Relying = Party Tool > Authors : Oleg Muravskiy > Tim Bruijnzeels > Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2016-03-21 >=20 > Abstract: > This document currently describes the approach to validate the > content of the RPKI certificate tree, as used by the RIPE NCC RPKI > Validator. This approach is independent of a particular object > retrieval mechanism. This allows it to be used with repositories > available over the rsync protocol, the RPKI Repository Delta > Protocol, and repositories that use a mix of both. >=20 > This algorithm does not rely on content of repository directories, > but uses the Authority Key Identifier (AKI) field of a manifest and = a > certificate revocation list (CRL) objects to discover manifest and > CRL objects issued by a particular Certificate Authority (CA). It > further uses the hashes of manifest entries to discover other = objects > issued by the CA. >=20 > If the working group finds that algorithm outlined here is useful = for > other implementations, we may either update future revisions of this > document to be less specific to the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator > implementation, or we may use this document as a starting point of a > generic validation document and keep this as a detailed description > of the actual RIPE NCC RPKI Validator implementation. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation-00 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 Cheers, Oleg From nobody Mon Mar 21 15:41:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C1712D164; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:41:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160321224131.12255.6798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:41:31 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:41:32 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF. Title : A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Authors : Samuel Weiler Anuja Sonalker Rob Austein Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2016-03-21 Abstract: This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects. This document provides the protocol for doing so. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-publication/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 21 15:45:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DEC12D170 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 35LppcLGPxNt for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyteen.hactrn.net (cyteen.hactrn.net [66.92.66.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB99912D175 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BFF0F0BB for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8BF3DF33E2 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:44:28 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20160321224131.12255.6798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160321224131.12255.6798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20160321224428.AB8BF3DF33E2@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:45:06 -0000 Protocol simplification (!) per discussion with Oleg. My co-author Sam Weiler did the heavy lifting on this revision, I just came in at the last minute to whack RelaxNG and example XML. Thank Sam for the good bits, blame me for the mistakes :) From nobody Mon Mar 21 16:38:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1660812D1A0; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 FpGLP7ADd7n8; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 648F212D194; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ai9P2-00085H-8R; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:38:28 +0000 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:38:27 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: idr wg list , sidr wg list User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] New Version Notification for draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:38:31 -0000 A new version of I-D, draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Randy Bush and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy Revision: 00 Title: Route Leak Detection and Filtering using Roles in Update and Open messages Document date: 2016-03-21 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 8 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy-00 Abstract: Route Leaks are propagation of BGP prefixes which violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships; e.g. passing a route learned from one peer to another peer or to a transit provider, passing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or to a peer. Today, approaches to leak prevention rely on marking routes according to some configuration options without any check of the configuration corresponds to that of the BGP neighbor, or enforcement that the two BGP speakers agree on the relationship. This document enhances BGP Open to establish agreement of the (peer, customer, provider, internal) relationship of two BGP neighboring speakers to enforce appropriate configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked with a flag according to agreed relationship allowing detection and mitigation of route leaks. From nobody Mon Mar 21 17:40:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C133712D1AA for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 we0TGA4bhcIC for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 D4D9312D16E for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 51so990192qgy.0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Uzmj1aMzdKyGBAMkNKtlWzDegH/pSO1w02yUsWEq2Oc=; b=iRiHczKwjbfqd9WZfMky/VMUPo3L1xawmACbIyQI21Jr0f1U7yxS6rmF/G/NPsOwpI tG4GxgkXUlZvMDkjZ853mXFnKy6QHM9a86zyVdv/B0KKNhZTIkeqaMfVHbTRFG+xnGVX FZIp2gLItfqnPUc26MHTii9Fg+tETxJ0nUlYQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Uzmj1aMzdKyGBAMkNKtlWzDegH/pSO1w02yUsWEq2Oc=; b=iLJ+WARsnNDHztCo7NNGxz7q4JD28FznKgkVppgXW6n12F8s/H1tU1BgEHf7tm0mHt iCfv8D185uzWEnXn/aC3PTyBgFoVmh1kfu1K0/LuR57PcNb9SKe64F83fwo5dZle/KmE uWVh262oGAo8Nys1s2S1rLYSP1hunqcSvCoPkbPQpDjJ7HTNaqhTMRGS5ZHKfsuNjVRv fkVua1CAdLFs+wNX5Q/RUEOO3lUOAfhm5nE8BN7n2gmiuBXiDOquRYKJAVJJ62Ak4Cmp 847RfgX5xG5/iQqvqsx38w7GJJvZX6ziCY3JL5GEHw9uWPEDVtdwV5pvb830AA92tnqR 45/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIH2sLbzsu7cXCikzyGjHzvuGRWZ9l7D5pghkbiyhSRzYrEavSFnndRCfmfN6mqSw== X-Received: by 10.140.42.196 with SMTP id c62mr44655714qga.66.1458607196027; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.112] ([96.231.217.211]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c108sm13442593qgc.13.2016.03.21.17.39.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:39:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:39:59 -0000 Since RFC6916 was the algorithm agility procedures RFC we=92d all been = waiting for, it makes sense to now point to it directly from the = 6485bis. It=92s an informative reference to RFC6919, but RFC6916 is a = BCP so it=92s probably fine. Let=92s progress this one. spt > On Mar 21, 2016, at 17:20, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > A nagging reminder. There has been no comment, pro or con. >=20 > It=92s a short draft. Please do review and say whether you want the = draft to progress or not. >=20 > If you want to see the differences in this latest version, one way is = to look at the tools page for the draft: >=20 > draft page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 > side-by-side diff: = https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05.txt >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chair >=20 > On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 >> As discussed in December, a new version for = draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis was required to deal with an IESG comment on = the Security Considerations section. >>=20 >> The authors have submitted a new version and ask for a working group = last call. >>=20 >> This starts the wglc which will end on 23 Mar 2016. Please review = the draft for its readiness for publication and provide comments to the = list. >>=20 >> Positive support is needed in order to judge consensus for = publication, so please do comment on the list. >>=20 >> The draft is available at: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05. >>=20 >> =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Tue Mar 22 14:15:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBDC12D9F0 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:15:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.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 2sO4tlNaTn6x for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gcc01-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cy1gcc01on0131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.200.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA7812D8A6 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=jblCntrHdL/GZrKyAMR9hbfMOi/ItHtoq9L6wYa9EBE=; b=ugCf8JXaTcA7FXmYEahM5Ant1MLyAEUxc8J/h8QGEzESVvR4SKD3XGh+vl23q4Upd/qCcPffcaKy9zyvbL0dlPXWVRN3RqGzli/SIyiKzaJsNpw/0HVnK2ynt5QVwyXQGv+UDJbaG97NmzCLXibd21UTR0cSQYzxQMDURTECwiY= Received: from SN1PR09MB0974.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.169.127.154) by SN1PR09MB0976.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.169.127.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.434.16; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:15:22 +0000 Received: from SN1PR09MB0974.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.127.154]) by SN1PR09MB0974.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.127.154]) with mapi id 15.01.0434.019; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:15:22 +0000 From: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" To: sidr , Sandra Murphy Thread-Topic: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 Thread-Index: AQHRgFGn2hI6xpZCVkK7MbAj4nB+DJ9lvC8A Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9B48BBCF-9A12-4AA3-9A40-F9CE71D92C0D@nist.gov> References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> In-Reply-To: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.160212 authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [129.6.222.250] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b999e2b4-849c-46e2-fc82-08d352971441 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1PR09MB0976; 5:U8QChkk5wQHKHv5d9zc5Q1RbaOWGAl3VIChItklXIfPgM5nMIvtT/JZlhTmBEKGSjLt6baQtc/mZdpTUvrY5jnGATFiKiVtx8NuEPV3aK9qq7IttTGnY1xNkUam7eGFH8lWqQrgPqt2N2152zEdKog==; 24:UOwA+GMBIWdM+TGlM69Nu8Q3XOR/4g/QERefQVBqM5Wa8HCAdPEB1tCLwSn+W7UpS38LyCH91JE0CHtKg1+EOybwdnXLVJ8gvmRt+J5j2/g= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN1PR09MB0976; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:SN1PR09MB0976; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1PR09MB0976; x-forefront-prvs: 08897B549D x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(10400500002)(345774005)(230783001)(4326007)(54356999)(1096002)(1220700001)(50986999)(92566002)(2900100001)(5004730100002)(5001770100001)(19580395003)(4001350100001)(66066001)(15975445007)(189998001)(102836003)(107886002)(99286002)(586003)(76176999)(2950100001)(82746002)(3280700002)(86362001)(5002640100001)(81166005)(4001430100002)(5008740100001)(87936001)(3660700001)(77096005)(2906002)(33656002)(19580405001)(122556002)(11100500001)(36756003)(83716003)(106116001)(83506001)(6116002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1PR09MB0976; H:SN1PR09MB0974.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <45FC31A5731FA04D9F125D9DA4CBF50D@namprd09.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Mar 2016 21:15:22.0904 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR09MB0976 Archived-At: Cc: Matthew Lepinski Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:15:27 -0000 TWF0dCwNCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciBpbmNvcnBvcmF0aW5nIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBjaGFuZ2Vz IHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgU2VxdWVuY2Ugb2YgT2N0ZXRzIHRvIGJlIEhhc2hlZC4gSSBsb29rZWQg b3ZlciBpdCBhbmQgaXQgbG9va3MgZ29vZCwNCg0KT2xpdmVyDQoNCg0KDQpPbiAzLzE3LzE2LCA5 OjMzIEFNLCAic2lkciBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgU2FuZHJhIE11cnBoeSIgPHNpZHItYm91bmNlc0Bp ZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2Ygc2FuZHJhLm11cnBoeUBwYXJzb25zLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoN Cj5UaGlzIHN0YXJ0cyBhIHR3byB3ZWVrIHdnbGMgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc2lkci1iZ3BzZWMt MTUuICANCj4NCj5UaGUgZHJhZnQgaXMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNpZHItYmdwc2VjLXByb3RvY29sLTE1Lg0KPg0KPlBsZWFzZSBy ZXNwb25kIHdpdGggeW91ciBvcGluaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdOKAmXMgcmVhZGluZXNzIGZvciBw dWJsaWNhdGlvbi4NCj4NCj5SZW1lbWJlciB0aGF0IHBvc2l0aXZlIHJlcGxpZXMgYXJlIG5lZWRl ZCwgc28gcGxlYXNlIGRvIHByb3ZpZGUgY29tbWVudHMgdG8gdGhlIGxpc3QuDQo+DQo+4oCUU2Fu ZHksIHNwZWFraW5nIGFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgd2cgY28tY2hhaXJzDQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5zaWRyIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPnNp ZHJAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NpZHIN Cg== From nobody Tue Mar 22 14:25:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2721912D937 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 H7ZXH_-jR8v3 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EF2512DA0D for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEADA28B003D for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:25:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59881F801E; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:25:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD31E7C9-D10D-4BB3-84C9-1BF3514F47EA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:25:30 -0400 Message-Id: <88D4B4BB-7E18-4DB6-B40B-EA6E8FAD19F9@tislabs.com> To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:25:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AD31E7C9-D10D-4BB3-84C9-1BF3514F47EA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 SIDR will be meeting in Buenos Aires. We have two slots - Monday, April 4, 2016 (ART) 14:00-15:30 Monday Afternoon session I Atlantico B Wednesday, April 6, 2016 (ART) 14:00-16:00 Wednesday Afternoon session I Buen Ayre A An agenda has been uploaded. You can view it at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda/sidr/ If you requested time on the agenda, but do not see a slot, please do = let the chairs know. If you want time on the agenda, there is still time available. =97Sandy --Apple-Mail=_AD31E7C9-D10D-4BB3-84C9-1BF3514F47EA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW8bhSAAoJEHplpQeet0IZ1dwQAIghRfi3Y3j0wgGR12m96isZ XxEGqF6y3hYff3+I0ewNp3xlfZgcY9C3ra7zO8nDQnklg+/er0M55t++HbT0UYHg sTt6Gc/RgMJfx3i0P9m5lMpUSjq+CdnkTMRbvWyeRl7kkOtre2LZyCfLFq/3yJYc m8pHJG6I/jZdDQzZd5IUh+r1hcDtgiwwTFFbZm31xvLohMp/bIxo9qwfS2OO7BNf oGyCiU+SvInQ+zw2+YmN1nhbxxgwYw8MwRPvHEx3d3Rm/T/QRJi9EJikg3XHD3Ld GymEGAY/x6gq2LN681oXKlIohUMfxbnXYfloUr7cHtRQVoErvk4yy3AgfdoYCJOX T0wkiaOe7VU2wzL49bnvPJ3+aDyG4rUB86RS77bqtV5NP92UAKOfyvHySVMlYx8C HxR2ZWcebHHb+EoubW0cHQ++C0HjfM+UMFd1k+fNslQqjFSRCZ9BWxrn3aczeH3+ v5z3sTOg47F4JOwYD6YxhVOfyIsQx0Zf0Zc1bbWr5Z+KSJJMhCff92JnwQVfClPc y/+C0f1tbXp15QLwuYjc0zaI9+AwhUz3LVX53X3ibsuKxY6G1D4e6F3kHs8md3RW ZfnQLN2FQhc9Jb+ybYuvSu4QmMj7yGK3ZsQD9WMgpYqY9W6N9TEkbNLUKEcMMSl2 7vlwE8zSEjXQ8hRAri8I =uMej -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AD31E7C9-D10D-4BB3-84C9-1BF3514F47EA-- From nobody Tue Mar 22 19:33:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2156A12D1E0 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 mmfAQBG-yY-g for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyteen.hactrn.net (cyteen.hactrn.net [66.92.66.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4EB12D0BC for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B04FB08 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1DA3E03352 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:32:42 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20160323023242.2F1DA3E03352@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:32:59 -0000 While it is (more than) a bit terrifying that it has now taken the WG two years to produce what boils down to an erratum on steroids, the document itself seems reasonable and clear, and the authors are to be commended for both their patience and their intestinal fortitude. Ship it. From nobody Wed Mar 23 06:04:14 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B272112DCFE for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 06:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 d1Cj_cEZM9fT for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 06:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net (mahimahi.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C0312DC6C for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aigPC-0006nn-Ax; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:52:51 +0100 Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-204.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aigPC-0004SB-3G; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:52:50 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:52:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: / X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -0.2 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a071932949feb4fb268addd74c7a135f92309 Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:04:13 -0000 Dear working group, Please progress. Thank you authors! Tim > On 21 Mar 2016, at 22:20, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > A nagging reminder. There has been no comment, pro or con. >=20 > It=92s a short draft. Please do review and say whether you want the = draft to progress or not. >=20 > If you want to see the differences in this latest version, one way is = to look at the tools page for the draft: >=20 > draft page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 > side-by-side diff: = https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05.txt >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chair >=20 > On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 >> As discussed in December, a new version for = draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis was required to deal with an IESG comment on = the Security Considerations section. >>=20 >> The authors have submitted a new version and ask for a working group = last call. >>=20 >> This starts the wglc which will end on 23 Mar 2016. Please review = the draft for its readiness for publication and provide comments to the = list. >>=20 >> Positive support is needed in order to judge consensus for = publication, so please do comment on the list. >>=20 >> The draft is available at: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05. >>=20 >> =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Wed Mar 23 13:50:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5E012D8F0 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.828 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Lg_nj0cCJCMZ for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (unknown [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0418412D8F3 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.64.163.142 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,383,1454994000"; d="scan'208";a="1237585219" Received: from unknown (HELO exchpapp01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.64.163.142]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 23 Mar 2016 16:49:49 -0400 Received: from EXCHPAPP03.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.144) by exchpapp01.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:50:25 -0400 Received: from EXCHPAPP03.corp.twcable.com ([10.64.163.144]) by exchpapp03.corp.twcable.com ([10.64.163.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1156.000; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:50:25 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Sandra Murphy , sidr Thread-Topic: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 Thread-Index: AQHRhUWfQYG/KBwBAEmb/lPsdMwZBw== Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> In-Reply-To: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.64.163.239] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.1191-8.000.1202-22210.005 x-tm-as-result: No--40.088000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9FD650F36E8C1445A1899E0CC217C096@twcable.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:50:32 -0000 U2hpcCBpdC4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpXZXMNCg0KDQoNCk9uIDMvMTcvMTYsIDk6MzMgQU0sICJz aWRyIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBTYW5kcmEgTXVycGh5Ig0KPHNpZHItYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBv biBiZWhhbGYgb2Ygc2FuZHJhLm11cnBoeUBwYXJzb25zLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj5UaGlzIHN0 YXJ0cyBhIHR3byB3ZWVrIHdnbGMgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc2lkci1iZ3BzZWMtMTUuDQo+DQo+ VGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdA0KPmh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9k cmFmdC1pZXRmLXNpZHItYmdwc2VjLXByb3RvY29sLTE1Lg0KPg0KPlBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHdp dGggeW91ciBvcGluaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdOKAmXMgcmVhZGluZXNzIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlv bi4NCj4NCj5SZW1lbWJlciB0aGF0IHBvc2l0aXZlIHJlcGxpZXMgYXJlIG5lZWRlZCwgc28gcGxl YXNlIGRvIHByb3ZpZGUgY29tbWVudHMNCj50byB0aGUgbGlzdC4NCj4NCj7igJRTYW5keSwgc3Bl YWtpbmcgYXMgb25lIG9mIHRoZSB3ZyBjby1jaGFpcnMNCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPnNpZHIgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+c2lkckBpZXRm Lm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2lkcg0KDQoNCl9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoNClRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgb2Yg aXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWluIFRpbWUgV2FybmVyIENhYmxlIHByb3ByaWV0YXJ5 IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB3aGljaCBpcyBwcml2aWxlZ2VkLCBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwsIG9yIHN1Ympl Y3QgdG8gY29weXJpZ2h0IGJlbG9uZ2luZyB0byBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZS4gVGhpcyBFLW1h aWwgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVu dGl0eSB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRl ZCByZWNpcGllbnQgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwsIHlvdSBhcmUgaGVyZWJ5IG5vdGlmaWVkIHRoYXQg YW55IGRpc3NlbWluYXRpb24sIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiwgY29weWluZywgb3IgYWN0aW9uIHRha2Vu IGluIHJlbGF0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiBhbmQgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgdG8gdGhpcyBF LW1haWwgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgcHJvaGliaXRlZCBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIHVubGF3ZnVsLiBJZiB5b3Ug aGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2Vu ZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFuZCBwZXJtYW5lbnRseSBkZWxldGUgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIGFuZCBh bnkgY29weSBvZiB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IHByaW50b3V0Lg0K From nobody Fri Mar 25 08:26:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CF012DB22; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20160325152612.17995.47945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:26:12 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: morrowc@ops-netman.net, draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration@ietf.org, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] Last Call: (BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:26:12 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document discusses considerations and methods for supporting and securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Mon Mar 28 05:54:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1AA12D8F0 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 seAIMbBbmO-Z for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (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 D9B3612D169 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c67so73732537qgc.1 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OuYpL+anw7u27wKBFBg57uIXmqsjNkbFB7havMi71gU=; b=C/L9Xq7R12fPX92J6Xfbesj3reWTHE8FQQgABXND0RnC6io66Ktjz6EttPi2ChuF5E R+vtx7Dgg6UdHVox0cjRJSIOShdCGAHSpE6f1gQG42ZYStZDAeHZiiZpUmMsX7KYxqL+ VHyUo0cp9W5KHC0OndkKzcuKu+/8W+j1zp0Xc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OuYpL+anw7u27wKBFBg57uIXmqsjNkbFB7havMi71gU=; b=O2uT2hysanx7TGx79G+7ekmzVxJqR8+WgOSmx5SflO5jW45+Qh0rCfRmGcx/MRL1OK cASNtSFEABROawJ3O7/xihitTvTqII/eI/80wu0df2hOs/ACz7U8dEByJeFnmrXJp4Cx 8uQnq52uOCl+bjNMFeh2xPo+0eXq0uC6v7+Jk9YSRmEXWAGICtan+F7FyhKYzKXLFGGa mdvDKqE2c5HIdpqXK+jvk/yhaW47lE1vV3tGhjQ6rtZ9jJkBYE+g62GRwoo/u4jVVyEN 4TBwc94YHpfWzonKIQuJPq71RctadvTihNQpLuuczoPBDIp2lINZ0yikkbvm2o/6tmeU 4XDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJspEetimb4D3OlWI5Q07k7m84h0zlm213zReFTR+87LHQuyqPheangkYcS4y1UQg== X-Received: by 10.140.255.136 with SMTP id a130mr37872353qhd.20.1459169648076; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.112] ([96.231.217.211]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 64sm11637519qhf.40.2016.03.28.05.54.07 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 08:54:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> To: sidr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:54:10 -0000 I re-read the draft and looked at the diffs from -14 and I think this = draft is ready to progress. spt > On Mar 17, 2016, at 09:33, Sandra Murphy = wrote: >=20 > This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15. =20 >=20 > The draft is available at = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15. >=20 > Please respond with your opinion of the draft=92s readiness for = publication. >=20 > Remember that positive replies are needed, so please do provide = comments to the list. >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Mon Mar 28 10:12:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A9412DBBF for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 fWFLs-KPS94H for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B540D12DBFE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E088328B0041 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (nova.tislabs.com [10.66.1.77]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90811F801E for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Samuel Weiler To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20160321224428.AB8BF3DF33E2@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Message-ID: References: <20160321224131.12255.6798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160321224428.AB8BF3DF33E2@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:12:05 -0000 On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Rob Austein wrote: > Protocol simplification (!) per discussion with Oleg. The changes in -08 are based on Oleg's astute observations that: -- per-PDU success messages aren't really helpful, especially if every update is tagged, and -- interleaving the list command with changes could be ambiguous and probably isn't useful. Full list of changes: -- a single success message replaces per-PDU success responses -- tag is now mandatory on publish/withdraw -- list command must standalone; cannot be combined with changes -- no tag on the list command, since it can't be combined -- added an error code for XML errors -- incremented the protocol version number -- some rearrangement of text From nobody Mon Mar 28 13:14:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489F912D0BC for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.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 Dvpv7BuE4aNO for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0127.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4446A12DB93 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=pW322NrRNbjiAEXkgOVVzPkOxerqcA/c6c4dUy7vrRw=; b=VtnvvL1YofuGwXhbblg0ZJbu+LwT2sgLOetcRiImVHWEAa4BZAUuURVYx7yFpl4yCVbXsKtC129xac0p+HDoBW+/CIIrFW9ceOKWhwKQDoihuoNA3M4qzHmui4834d7umIMFBnyB6laoBTGO3VjJi9L/3HAxT1HL5HKYcsdaZ2c= Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.143) by CY1PR09MB0795.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:14:12 +0000 Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) by CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) with mapi id 15.01.0447.023; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:14:12 +0000 From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" To: Thomas King , "sidr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHRNnoeBTQtz7wo5UuIHjaJS1blSp9v6Szw Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:14:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151214141704.6060.4078.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <91A4DE37-13EF-4E45-9D7D-49C1D271D6A9@de-cix.net> In-Reply-To: <91A4DE37-13EF-4E45-9D7D-49C1D271D6A9@de-cix.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: de-cix.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;de-cix.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov; x-originating-ip: [129.6.140.122] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4fa5b42c-95b0-403d-ef53-08d357458724 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR09MB0795; 5:LarWvdyGNCp7QQRdoLqM+LyO/FOWRW/UCqawEcBSG4mnZI6obvHoKTS1wnj6X1l8NHHswMhBn0JgEOMAf42+pmzr/SJqdB/jqJJrgo5jPi/zfeNb3PRgmveQ85OT0KxEer/nR4R8ksSvZdxf6HsHtA==; 24:kD4qF644/GC80z3qndWS79KrGEpTiAgc/aNAKoK9kE6jhdYtD1K6PkCbkHuI+nO0zZkAEpgsWfAlJjieskG9GLlBxwZNT8bOyRlgDjhOC2s= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR09MB0795; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:CY1PR09MB0795; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0795; x-forefront-prvs: 0895DF8FFD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(2906002)(66066001)(10400500002)(2900100001)(87936001)(77096005)(2950100001)(11100500001)(5008740100001)(5002640100001)(74316001)(76576001)(2501003)(5003600100002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(81166005)(15650500001)(122556002)(107886002)(76176999)(50986999)(33656002)(189998001)(99286002)(5001770100001)(54356999)(586003)(102836003)(92566002)(1096002)(3846002)(86362001)(6116002)(230783001)(106116001)(5004730100002)(1220700001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0795; H:CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Mar 2016 20:14:11.6682 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR09MB0795 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] New Version Notification for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0000 I read the draft. A few comments: 1. RPKI validation refers to checking cryptographic integrity of the RPKI o= bjects such as certs, ROAs, etc. What you intend to signal from RS to peers is prefix-origin validation resu= lts (RFC 6811). s/RPKI validation results/ prefix-origin validation results/g 2. "Route-servers providing RPKI-based route origin validation set the validation state according to the RPKI validation result (see [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered])." = (in Section 2) The reference cited here is incorrect. It should be RFC 6811. RFC 6811 defines the prefix-origin validation states and also provides the = validation algorithm. 3. How do you signal that the RS did not perform validation on an update (f= or whatever reason). Is that implicitly conveyed when the "Prefix Origin Validation State Extend= ed Community" is absent in the update forwarded to peers? May be it needs to be said in t= he draft. For instance, 'Not Found' should not be used as default value in the extend= ed community. 'Did not perform validation' should not be equated to 'Not Found'. Sriram From nobody Mon Mar 28 13:38:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A3A12D155 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:38:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.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 PXmQL13e5iRQ for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957D912DB70 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=V2Evn6HIKkuVlWs0PdVxVbguraCnhn5Y6sTg/XiC+Y8=; b=H4PJevgv6fQpKArVbRF36sC6zkba6qnz5Z0e76qY2IvBJrvsxbS1Buyay5UydaD4ChJI48ObfmxJrjIoxnIQTb8/Mcp6JZ67e2z0iq0WuLFK3goLxzLi7dwAbx2Iw46FjshW0nk4We9xe57RmbdHhTdgb8nLlDulBxMn7kw+AMY= Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.143) by CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.163.43.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29 +0000 Received: from CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) by CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.43.143]) with mapi id 15.01.0447.023; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29 +0000 From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" To: Sandra Murphy , sidr Thread-Topic: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 Thread-Index: AQHRe7hGbHlwJDIeVkSl8w2sjUWLlJ9vZj5Q Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: tislabs.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;tislabs.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov; x-originating-ip: [129.6.140.122] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bda4a765-bb6b-4587-99f3-08d35748ec13 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR09MB0793; 5:oR3hrkuDiDkNFzW/r5VtsIgCVe5C7BG3/xn/LuW9ozIQLJ/wP8fPVuro9PlFtiYZu/v7dAE89XrUBG8owv6CJSuFHoS9bHUhXD3ZsKd9w5xsDe10WLXnCVigQbZgdO3Qt7Aia6sWpryBkHNdROvSsQ==; 24:6MtO6MzM4C6fufdD7efgAJ3Xaf4kHEJdnsOUVj6bQp20GeQF7khU7djzN+liV3mecO/q/b+mkrDyOPxFXbtmWNULtVyOX6VVuTuplap0EJM= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR09MB0793; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:CY1PR09MB0793; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0793; x-forefront-prvs: 0895DF8FFD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(377454003)(586003)(10400500002)(81166005)(86362001)(77096005)(15975445007)(76576001)(122556002)(66066001)(2950100001)(5004730100002)(2900100001)(87936001)(74316001)(11100500001)(5008740100001)(230783001)(76176999)(2906002)(92566002)(33656002)(1220700001)(1096002)(106116001)(19580405001)(5001770100001)(19580395003)(50986999)(5003600100002)(99286002)(189998001)(54356999)(3660700001)(3280700002)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(107886002)(5002640100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR09MB0793; H:CY1PR09MB0793.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29.6528 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR09MB0793 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:34 -0000 I have read the draft and support adoption. Sriram -----Original Message----- From: sidr [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:06 PM To: sidr Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt th= is draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether= you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and com= ment on the work. The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adver= se-actions-02 -Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs From nobody Mon Mar 28 13:44:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2179712DB7D for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 yM3cVQLUKGFM for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail526c25.carrierzone.com (mail526c25.carrierzone.com [64.29.147.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C15412DB46 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail526c25.carrierzone.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail526c25.carrierzone.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id u2SKi4Wv021476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:44:04 +0000 Received: (from webmail@localhost) by mail526c25.carrierzone.com (8.14.9/8.12.2/Submit) id u2SKhxVn021310; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:43:59 -0400 Received: from c-73-4-42-229.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (c-73-4-42-229.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.4.42.229]) by mail.islandpeaksoftware.com (Webmail 5.0 V.V.I.) with HTTP for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:43:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20160328164359.nfuvtn940kks0ggs@mail.islandpeaksoftware.com> From: mcr@islandpeaksoftware.com To: Sandra Murphy , sidr Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:43:59 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-Authenticated-User: mcr.islandpeaksoftware.com References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_5s4ueys05ea7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Webmail 6.0 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.1 cv=Zo/UdbLG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117 a=vYENOC+fU7OXnT2953Z2qQ==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=n8vjir1z_l8A:10 a=7OsogOcEt9IA:10 a=G-JvYgQUlsIBVzUhMCsA:9 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=j5z8yy-lM0-8urHG_ncA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ImH2GW_KAAAA:8 a=qdUW3i1ncodOVk1mWK4A:9 a=ukLwyHbOfv6QtNoM:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A010204.56F99794.0126, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:44:11 -0000 This message is in MIME format. --=_5s4ueys05ea7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format="flowed" Content-Description: Plaintext Version of Message Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I support adoption of this document. On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29 +0000, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" wrote: I have read the draft and support adoption. Sriram -----Original Message----- From: sidr [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:06 PM To: sidr Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and comment on the work. The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 -Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr --=_5s4ueys05ea7 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_6h8h88ybiaa7"; start="6h90q3lrg77z@mail.islandpeaksoftware.com" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message is in MIME format. --=_6h8h88ybiaa7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Description: HTML Version of Message Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-ID: 6h90q3lrg77z@mail.islandpeaksoftware.com

I support adoption of this document.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:38:29 +0000, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> wrote:

I have read the draft and support adoption.

Sriram

-----Original Message-----
From: sidr [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:06 PM
To: sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
Cc: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Subject: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02

This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02.

Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016.

Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and comment on the work.

The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02

-Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs


_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr



--=_6h8h88ybiaa7-- --=_5s4ueys05ea7-- From nobody Mon Mar 28 14:54:14 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C4C12D565 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 Pv_JX50aoLqO for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mikesoffice.com (dns.mikesoffice.com [75.101.48.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64C112D575 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:274:3e97:eff:feba:52f]) by mail.mikesoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A80A390058; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:54:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Baer To: Sandra Murphy References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> X-Face: "*g#dUT3; 8M9AE5dLk\\b4G\cNCQkRb.g/2QwEXQKf.: (Sandra Murphy's message of "Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:41 -0400") Message-ID: <87r3eus1z8.fsf@rebma.mikesoffice.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:54:13 -0000 >>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:41 -0400, Sandra Murphy said: SM> This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15.=20=20 SM> The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-si= dr-bgpsec-protocol-15. SM> Please respond with your opinion of the draft=E2=80=99s readiness f= or publication. SM> Remember that positive replies are needed, so please do provide com= ments to the list. SM> =E2=80=94Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs I have read the draft and I think it's good to go forward. -Mike --=20 Michael Baer baerm@tislabs.com PARSONS From nobody Tue Mar 29 05:42:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAA312D7A2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:42:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 l5Ijmb9K2Zh8 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 BB5CC12D156 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id h129so15850729ywb.1 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E6vl14GweXpqW2N63wgPHIPdeny2JzBqC0E1mYU9ms0=; b=whsviyxfWchURHPhIp5slfFPeZexbXqCpA/NGgo9TPbhLyVoULXJnXD6ALmHtwY+y9 lGX0aXFklco9PINoQgtpMRLLnj1ZYCXs1WfK8g62kosIhEZPP4ERKxX0Sj2OIvnbVJMG uBWbl303bIJyT/EtxLZflW8DUHzTGgOywPDa1o8AUe2MOyyZK20GiWBauIOiIUrWp5Zp gSo9rxIhZpFVfUyTH5GMPErm0tFa2UXYVgWIUzAfrjE95/yoLFlGE1qdp2K5K5bATp/h zkS5p4fQYiIxsl0+rTQd+Yipezj5201gY4xH1NppLdPwRHuuJ8rci1GOawNPGGm3kCxr Ot+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=E6vl14GweXpqW2N63wgPHIPdeny2JzBqC0E1mYU9ms0=; b=X6vZcwd6H17Y09d2Blp9ggWDKIHxf2JXUaUJcR2b+Zu3NxMTaoQqQuGU+QOveWIYsZ NnCzWEYRsqC1jGnIW3ltFRYwv6xcTuP5TK2IwvuGFNirslnSmyQCajutDax0U2Q5TK5X 2ryiagN4J7MyMIHmGN97kAokPGU1maUK4EqoAh9nnqdp5at+yNx4DAUbUqt31M55pZMk 7DGnUsD+cHNli6FPFrXSOIHkEhSdq6AJmp9+sNhWyMdUnjz+gg6fFM5eT/Ji3AjbyYH8 iqUNsP842bPS5LUve6KrjjZ1SeHBfJOqDOOMhEFrKolk4gtt9te26ab739uukSh2qXfK MFTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKWWh0hOHI3Fx4YADIxppcJdug3qiS0uoPlqRlDuizbAbhvGNzNBZ2INoa+xRNz0iMk9BGCPmPYylhtCW0h X-Received: by 10.13.210.67 with SMTP id u64mr844355ywd.42.1459255347977; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:42:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> In-Reply-To: From: Warren Kumari Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:42:18 +0000 Message-ID: To: Sean Turner , sidr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e7e30a74c6c052f2f5cbe Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:42:30 -0000 --001a114e7e30a74c6c052f2f5cbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:54 AM Sean Turner wrote: > I re-read the draft and looked at the diffs from -14 and I think this > draft is ready to progress. > Yup. I read it on the plane, looks goot to me. W > > spt > > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 09:33, Sandra Murphy > wrote: > > > > This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15. > > > > The draft is available at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15. > > > > Please respond with your opinion of the draft=E2=80=99s readiness for > publication. > > > > Remember that positive replies are needed, so please do provide comment= s > to the list. > > > > =E2=80=94Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > > sidr mailing list > > sidr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > --001a114e7e30a74c6c052f2f5cbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon= , Mar 28, 2016 at 8:54 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
I re= -read the draft and looked at the diffs from -14 and I think this draft is = ready to progress.

Yup. I read it on th= e plane, looks goot to me.
W
=C2=A0

spt

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 09:33, Sandra Murphy <sandra.murphy@parsons.com> wro= te:
>
> This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15.
>
> The draft is available at https:/= /tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-15.
>
> Please respond with your opinion of the draft=E2=80=99s readiness for = publication.
>
> Remember that positive replies are needed, so please do provide commen= ts to the list.
>
> =E2=80=94Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
--001a114e7e30a74c6c052f2f5cbe-- From nobody Tue Mar 29 08:45:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964D312D95A for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:45:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 qW0_Xoc91DE4 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249EC12D8E9 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1akvpP-0000PY-7L; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:45:13 +0200 Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-197.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1akvpP-0001AJ-10; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:45:11 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:45:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ------- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -7.7 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719ed762a1701e5bbc027d5eebc20ac9289 Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:45:30 -0000 Dear working group, I support adopting this work. I believe it's useful to think about what = can go wrong. I am happy to see that this document (1) focusses on = adverse actions irrespective of intentional or accidental cause, and (2) = does not suggest a solution. I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be addressed: = this document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things wrong / = scary' about RPKI used for origin validation and/or BGPSec. However, to = my knowledge, there is no similar analysis of adverse actions to IRRs. = Most of the same problems exist there - and far worse: RPs do not have = the benefit of object security so they would be largely unaware. I think = it would be counterproductive if this wasn't clear, and the document is = abused to make a point for being better of with simple IRR. Regards Tim > On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:05, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. >=20 > Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should = adopt this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar = 2016. >=20 > Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state = whether you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will = review and comment on the work. >=20 > The draft is available at = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 >=20 > =E2=80=94Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Tue Mar 29 14:06:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A8E12DC93 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 is77LgarCy8e for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (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 C090412D1D3 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id y89so22721037qge.2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZjafA6sf6Ch16UgDeowXxeuEkpXBwEyITs78bYpL7z0=; b=nRQYGg2QxFdl5+JCF7h/d3jACziI816u+smQ4k6+uopUP2zd0YhJhanmhMtAD6eHr0 9wh0b+1MiHiwni/5OXulmVxbLUo69ZkI+z4S3HwtwQkAAqXIQ6+2V+4pF5+HVSTQXlZK rm1ZgnxPa8EPbCmWhulhzrva6I6tG5Olgl8fBV9iQG+CI1JlU+PfCMoED+MRfDcDFY81 BPERNP1VB1jC4bSMBCBTlaHjL+xBzAh8LEk2Pvm9roEtCj/UnPaU/f88NPYGlNVdYI6A 6P+NilAuwEUFb7f6WDqJuhfLezoucvf2ur4S9c0/2z/7JNvR+ynShtzAJO3183e1aH/W ysUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZjafA6sf6Ch16UgDeowXxeuEkpXBwEyITs78bYpL7z0=; b=g11yRyZShY1TVz6KMNee0FzO4aLktYaYgPlkT0z7nB9BuC0s6a9XTXNkvZ8XQQFMuj sEGpcsHIEcZAVBmVQKkH61NTVkCzlw4Vl8Zbn/BHxYDfauUE/Z0PEjOqIIhmImm/Y8dk SuY04KdKx7WvkBEs18SjckjQrq9/IllukCwnCbP8KPNgCcilSn89uD91ncL2QtUNpgQe kLLDHYFtf2GqV24AkOBvBwHhurPOKondDOBAkWrblhWDHLh0EMqx+MGy1b4m6IBX0BzQ hpOM2T3YMwHRWz9I0psem79yaEub2Wt5DF1e8MxXGzaMkX/MtuS4v2Dpce34BoII8Dak GIYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKSRTMMN4deraazF9hBRzr70kBYnAuaKfncGGqQhoIE7vuV8dUvNxc5UymlHOwweQ== X-Received: by 10.140.93.247 with SMTP id d110mr5466423qge.28.1459283975817; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [200.7.87.117] ([200.7.87.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d65sm228297qgf.30.2016.03.29.13.39.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> To: Tim Bruijnzeels , Sandra Murphy From: "Carlos M. Martinez" Message-ID: <56FAE802.20604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:39:30 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:06:14 -0000 I support adoption as well. On 3/29/16 12:45 PM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Dear working group, > > I support adopting this work. I believe it's useful to think about what can go wrong. I am happy to see that this document (1) focusses on adverse actions irrespective of intentional or accidental cause, and (2) does not suggest a solution. > > I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be addressed: this document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things wrong / scary' about RPKI used for origin validation and/or BGPSec. However, to my knowledge, there is no similar analysis of adverse actions to IRRs. Most of the same problems exist there - and far worse: RPs do not have the benefit of object security so they would be largely unaware. I think it would be counterproductive if this wasn't clear, and the document is abused to make a point for being better of with simple IRR. > > Regards > Tim > > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:05, Sandra Murphy wrote: >> >> This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. >> >> Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. >> >> Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and comment on the work. >> >> The draft is available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 >> >> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > From nobody Tue Mar 29 14:55:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1916812D1E5 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 GvohsHyaMInY for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31D612D1CD for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1al1bP-0003Gh-J9; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:55:07 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:55:06 -0300 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Cc: sidr , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:55:12 -0000 > I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be > addressed: this document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things > wrong / scary' about RPKI used for origin validation and/or > BGPSec. However, to my knowledge, there is no similar analysis of > adverse actions to IRRs. Most of the same problems exist there - and > far worse: RPs do not have the benefit of object security so they > would be largely unaware. I think it would be counterproductive if > this wasn't clear, and the document is abused to make a point for > being better of with simple IRR. this has bothered me. thank you for expressing it far better than i could randy From nobody Wed Mar 30 05:55:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D39012E1F9 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:55:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 RyBOUVyoAF9K for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 2FA7B12E305 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w104so32367391qge.3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:44:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GShXNWlvDMjyxt0Wlz1aDJBnOOFLQSGJCCL8w2qBX/w=; b=olqLJYO8LY5mCP5O+HcoC+gLn5OL6Phbdbpsfjew2Y8nAIl+EljVTxquxoCP+zO65g GrTr0IsmCt43lcxAETEHWuwdEvzrrQgCR2f5r40QEMS3h0KU4cx602N7OOlTyeaLX1CR ly2v+n13NHiHIzekwlEAvijtEtF3oC14/PDCdXY7H0zRoQbzifcOXstLuim/VRUiVNAW gAJCnPuXOtfhd72XLczbMlBsZ1j1cuy66UZETVJIKdnNPGCm1ofOQQ/V7sEgU8+satyU Dvn92V2Cfc59LDAzqMJRLyKiLmkFWbnqo9c2ZUSiCGkgQUO8J9ek+UMgzk45FaNLsPCB xLxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GShXNWlvDMjyxt0Wlz1aDJBnOOFLQSGJCCL8w2qBX/w=; b=ZkuNmQb/mLuA9HNHhG/ZoNdMX9sCcQSAX0/2203dzGiV0GjUb63syPpS6d9AiFCG3y zkVPBIDDoOq+50WaRTjHJQoVeCdDb49xCutNQiNZuAygSIF78qRZPuodicZVrT1zRjgo 96+xFwpjXi3E5AhjXwX1GHc9NKYXol0ZzAgbaGNXtotWITberC+ZZnqR0Nj2NxnXDoi2 DJHsxIP73DuDUzao67Gu+Of9HMdKyn8v+yghK7nBKyNkBTi5F96/TXMyB57nd6a0lNzf r1yf8+haQzVvrC1xkfgtvBluKr/AiguLc4ERvef5PNNkNOLjAPczUYY9jJ2qKsUVSKet wBcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI/tULynK3NEIrZ50WTsekDDmgIds3MIngK4bXjg+t00Y+DkpklWVn0NRb7rH12rA== X-Received: by 10.140.237.204 with SMTP id i195mr10017518qhc.55.1459341889180; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:7000:24f9:cb4a:d921:5669? ([2001:13c7:7001:7000:24f9:cb4a:d921:5669]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f24sm1676423qkf.6.2016.03.30.05.44.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:44:48 -0700 (PDT) References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> To: Randy Bush , Tim Bruijnzeels From: "Carlos M. Martinez" Message-ID: <56FBCA3D.60400@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:44:45 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy , sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: carlos@lacnic.net List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:55:33 -0000 +1 On 3/29/16 6:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be >> addressed: this document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things >> wrong / scary' about RPKI used for origin validation and/or >> BGPSec. However, to my knowledge, there is no similar analysis of >> adverse actions to IRRs. Most of the same problems exist there - and >> far worse: RPs do not have the benefit of object security so they >> would be largely unaware. I think it would be counterproductive if >> this wasn't clear, and the document is abused to make a point for >> being better of with simple IRR. > > this has bothered me. thank you for expressing it far better than i > could > > randy > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > From nobody Wed Mar 30 07:52:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C81012D19F for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 3CGM7O3lGr1t for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62BB12D136 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:35985 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1alH5I-000Ib1-LI for sidr@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:27:00 -0400 To: sidr@ietf.org References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> From: Stephen Kent Message-ID: <56FBE234.7090703@bbn.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:27:00 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:52:07 -0000 Tim, That's a fair point. Are you suggesting that we create a separate doc to enumerate vulnerabilities in the IRR context, or that we add a section to this doc to describe, in less detail, such vulnerabilities? Steve > Dear working group, > > I support adopting this work. I believe it's useful to think about what can go wrong. I am happy to see that this document (1) focusses on adverse actions irrespective of intentional or accidental cause, and (2) does not suggest a solution. > > I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be addressed: this document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things wrong / scary' about RPKI used for origin validation and/or BGPSec. However, to my knowledge, there is no similar analysis of adverse actions to IRRs. Most of the same problems exist there - and far worse: RPs do not have the benefit of object security so they would be largely unaware. I think it would be counterproductive if this wasn't clear, and the document is abused to make a point for being better of with simple IRR. > > Regards > Tim From nobody Wed Mar 30 08:09:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C9412D766 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 YnSIWkt4GuTp for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C2B12D715 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 175E82136E1; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chaedge02.corp.arin.net (chaedge02.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DE4213618; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CAS02CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.63) by chaedge02.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:07:21 -0400 Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.62) by CAS02CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:06:09 -0400 Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::b4a5:12e4:34a8:a6e7]) by CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::b4a5:12e4:34a8:a6e7%13]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:06:08 -0400 From: Andy Newton To: Stephen Kent Thread-Topic: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 Thread-Index: AQHRe7g1YXn6Ql6T90y4lKvwss1hFJ9w75EAgAF8fQCAAAt/AA== Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:06:08 +0000 Message-ID: <7835A724-0AC2-462C-A2AF-1B48BE78DD6D@arin.net> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> <56FBE234.7090703@bbn.com> In-Reply-To: <56FBE234.7090703@bbn.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: [10.1.34.130] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7835A7240AC2462CA2AF1B48BE78DD6Darinnet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:09:06 -0000 --_000_7835A7240AC2462CA2AF1B48BE78DD6Darinnet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mar 30, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Kent > wrote: That's a fair point. Are you suggesting that we create a separate doc to en= umerate vulnerabilities in the IRR context, or that we add a section to this doc to= describe, in less detail, such vulnerabilities? +1 on documenting this being a good idea. Unfortunately, enumerating the IRR vulnerabilities would likely consume you= r current document. Perhaps a companion document is more appropriate. -andy --_000_7835A7240AC2462CA2AF1B48BE78DD6Darinnet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mar 30, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:

That's a fair point. Are you suggesting that we create a separate doc to enumerat= e
vulnerabilities in the IRR context, or that we add a section to this doc to describe,
in less detail, such vulnerabilities?

+1 on documenting this being a good idea.

Unfortunately, enumerating the IRR vulnerabilities would li= kely consume your current document.

Perhaps a companion document is more appropriate.

-andy
--_000_7835A7240AC2462CA2AF1B48BE78DD6Darinnet_-- From nobody Wed Mar 30 10:35:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5486212D828 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 9ecMdTqqoK76 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2256B12D827 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1alK22-00081Y-Dm; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:35:50 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:35:49 -0300 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Stephen Kent In-Reply-To: <56FBE234.7090703@bbn.com> References: <513BC696-168B-48A6-94EC-B0CD4B3292EC@icloud.com> <002885DC-BD79-47C4-A069-7F86269549B6@tislabs.com> <613CF604-76EC-4901-90D7-1DBB5A606946@ripe.net> <56FBE234.7090703@bbn.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:35:54 -0000 > That's a fair point. Are you suggesting that we create a separate doc > to enumerate vulnerabilities in the IRR context, or that we add a > section to this doc to describe, in less detail, such vulnerabilities? for each scary point, just compare to existing irr tech. i.e. "this is the same problem as irr has," or "this ameliorates some of the following irr problem." randy From nobody Wed Mar 30 14:50:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E240412D959 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:50:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 o8bfGEtvNPii for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adrilankha.hactrn.net (adrilankha.hactrn.net [IPv6:2001:418:1::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA2C412D929 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-73-47-197-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.47.197.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by adrilankha.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B08D17031 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876AF3E21D94 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:50:09 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> References: <083B024B-DA3A-4D1B-A77B-382F69D99A1C@parsons.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20160330215009.876AF3E21D94@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:50:38 -0000 At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:33:41 -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > This starts a two week wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15. =20 > Please respond with your opinion of the draft?s readiness for publication. Ship it. From nobody Wed Mar 30 22:59:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8550D12D940 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 SoRnydozSJl8 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5791F12D8C7 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOM21615; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:59:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 06:59:27 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.36]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:59:23 +0800 From: "Xialiang (Frank)" To: "sidr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 Thread-Index: AdGLEngTivPMSCpXSOKLwjs6UhNC+w== Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:59:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AF267F7SZXEMA502MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.56FCBCC1.0105, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.36, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 188ca79aeb505681c75e7c50135b8cad Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:59:32 -0000 --_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AF267F7SZXEMA502MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi I have read this draft and support the adoption of it. B.R. Frank --_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AF267F7SZXEMA502MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

I have read this draft and supp= ort the adoption of it.

 

B.R.

Frank

--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AF267F7SZXEMA502MBSchi_-- From nobody Thu Mar 31 02:06:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C78B12D143 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:06:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 oZbq4XrKBz-l for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A115E12D098 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175AB28B003D for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028151F8056; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_568F0A01-0DF2-4375-95E3-74898847C973"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:05:55 -0400 Message-Id: To: sidr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] slides for Monday and Wednesday X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:06:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_568F0A01-0DF2-4375-95E3-74898847C973 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 All presenters for Monday should send their slides to the chairs as soon = as possible, no later than Sunday noon. (That gives the chairs time to = hunt you down at the social.) All presenters for Wednesday should send their slides to the chairs by = the Monday meeting time. Please remember to number your slides. =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs --Apple-Mail=_568F0A01-0DF2-4375-95E3-74898847C973 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW/Oh/AAoJEHplpQeet0IZtvEP/1aIIeZBqZWHAZQgBWlT7Gp2 nwpVp1JCCrDLizRosQKbwV2q5LrrZiVbFiQSHiWptZkj0kDJxLUVSvVg0SLW/Pr+ V7Y8Ul0+Hyy9weIqB3hVgfdlovYnwutF/8KGyU996qXRq6rHdJKzgUnvF7m3RZYU 4NQOJW0MEo75ToQSjNUhPdAPgPWWf/xihIsNFz5GyUlCL/oSf1d3Ys/TqF5AEx76 rrAmRxL+sGGciPYVis1UwNgcQuEplSqK2S+3Wb7vhOa6qgp3qPXDN1q8tPYP7wvh yOBEz5OZnYjliGWTFBTyXVi3FsERQS5h8CnIBRvLWTOZKHRVwV9Oip9zyASTROia pO7mh+pHl3AVrd7XO+mp5akFc2AgQRTnDHHozgAAQ2c9vIQh2XRdLejn94NLMMTA 3urkEhxquzGRPGlg1UN3t1iWi47WYjHGWyX8EBOeJjxm1o+JH66a6w7mat61P2h7 dNDx4K9Dd3ukRwm2VE3XkM8ng20Yr73CYZg3u8ARFZSehqSTY9UooMWtBZzIvTLp 8s8PUO1NQfSLgNb5kFNohTAtgljhpl0pzyeVSMItz1+MYBLhpfJiROaGt3mtzWfH gSFOa5TGtV3TCJXpkSdAMPVN5geMRgxOgF5vluGlZc+jOWvkuvWY++aTpv7VeOzq mT3JK8aYPdJGqF8dt2na =u4Ft -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_568F0A01-0DF2-4375-95E3-74898847C973-- From nobody Thu Mar 31 20:55:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C07512D14D for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:55:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 sKslSMBEIu5L for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650BC12D1B8 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:55:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2489; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459482938; x=1460692538; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ufTW5ztoZ4IFxWTdWiAudbpILg7wYEQEBTWKmqCKX8A=; b=SQFAdfiP3WwzvKoFwBYdF1SOk9Reb7QECprAW07Cuj1chFKI+k6Q3WXM EsrUcYx82rp5dSix7L/WxcXhSfxVI72TcqL4qpKQWY+TqiABp3M1e0xES 51qtqpxSaoMWkPDqA7EcTRPK+/aeyX8V2F0fHKIuXAtGNWvMQSGKS0QPI I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CtBADv8P1W/xbLJq1aA4QGfQa9DhcKh?= =?us-ascii?q?WwCghQBAQEBAQFmJ4RBAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIDgouJwslAgQOBYgfCA7DWAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEiBMIgkmEDhEBHCMmgmSCKwWXdQGFcoJyh?= =?us-ascii?q?SOBZoRNgyiEF4EbhhqIfQFiggQZgUpsAYcxNn4BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,425,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="636722673" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2016 03:55:35 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u313tYZp025154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:55:35 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:55:34 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:55:33 -0400 From: "Brian Weis (bew)" To: Sandra Murphy Thread-Topic: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 Thread-Index: AQHRi8pXFXe4h0A/qE6ande6rIMZfQ== Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:55:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <769D58E2-90FF-4F93-ACDB-3D1F8C0B2294@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: 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: [10.19.191.171] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: sidr Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 03:55:40 -0000 I=92ve read this draft version, and compared it to RFC 6485. It's a reasona= ble update, and believe this draft to be ready for publication. There=92s one nit that could be fixed. At some point during the rfc6485bis= development three words were added at the end of this sentence in section = 2: =93The Object Identifier (OID) sha256WithRSAEncryption from [RFC4055] MUS= T be used in these products." This is a bit imprecise as the requirement being made on the RPKI portion o= f the =93product=94, not the =93product=94 itself. I would suggest replacin= g these three words with either "by subscribers" or =93in RPKI implementat= ions=94 (to match wording used elsewhere in the draft). Thanks, Brian On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > A nagging reminder. There has been no comment, pro or con. >=20 > It=92s a short draft. Please do review and say whether you want the draf= t to progress or not. >=20 > If you want to see the differences in this latest version, one way is to = look at the tools page for the draft: >=20 > draft page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-05 > side-by-side diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr= -rfc6485bis-05.txt >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chair >=20 > On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 >> As discussed in December, a new version for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis w= as required to deal with an IESG comment on the Security Considerations sec= tion. >>=20 >> The authors have submitted a new version and ask for a working group las= t call. >>=20 >> This starts the wglc which will end on 23 Mar 2016. Please review the d= raft for its readiness for publication and provide comments to the list. >>=20 >> Positive support is needed in order to judge consensus for publication, = so please do comment on the list. >>=20 >> The draft is available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-= rfc6485bis-05. >>=20 >> =97Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr --=20 Brian Weis Security, CSG, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: bew@cisco.com