Subject: [sidr] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:10:51 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thanks for a very readable document.

I did have one question - I saw that you're chatting about the same
paragraph with Alissa, but I'm wondering if "the transitive closure of a
client's customers" has a precise meaning. I know what a customer is, at
the hand-waving level, but I'm not sure how I would know whether any
particular case fit that description, at the corner-case level. Is
"customer" being used a shorthand for another term that isn't depending
on an economic transaction?

(If this was "the transitive closure of a client's clients", for
instance, I would know what that meant - and I'm not at all suggesting
that's correct, only offering it as an example of the kind of thing I'm
asking about)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:21:19 +0900

you are at the intersection (well actially union) of two twisty sets of
passages, bgp routing and internet ops.

> I'm wondering if "the transitive closure of a client's customers" has
> a precise meaning. I know what a customer is, at the hand-waving
> level

the academic, overly-idealized, definitions of customer/provider/peer
are in https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/sigmetrics00.long.pdf,
aka gao-rexford; though this has been shown to apply to the real
internet far less strictly than many researchers have stubbornly
assumed; see http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/imc/2015/papers/p71.pdf

at the network ops level, a 'customer' is an ebgp-speaking AS to which
you give routes learned from
  o other custimers
  o your peers
  o your upstreams/transits
  o your internals
of course, by business arrangement, this might be restricted.

this may be contrasted with peers and upstreams/transits, to whom you
give only customer and internal routes.

> Is "customer" being used a shorthand for another term that isn't
> depending on an economic transaction?

exactly

> instance, I would know what that meant

a route reflector's "clients" are ibgp speakers (stress is on the 'i')
within the RR's AS.  a (possibly improper) subset of those clients may
be "customer aggregation" routers, i.e. connect via ebgp to ASs of
external entities (aka customers).  iff one or more of those RR clients
(or their clients, cf 'transitive closure') speak bgpsec to a customer
is the RR required to do bgpsec.  if all the customers (which could be
the null set) of of the RR's clients speak only bgp classic, there is no
requirement that the RR speak bgpsec.

randy

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 20:53:34 -0600

Hi, Randy,

On Jan 4, 2017 18:21, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:

exactly

I'm wondering if there's another term that's not wrong, and not more
confusing. If you say there's not, I believe you!

Thanks for catching me up.

Spencer

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:08:46 +0900

spencer,

[ btw, your mua seems not to do quoting level in its ascii rendering ]

> confusing. If you say there's not, I believe you!

as we said in my long gone compiler days, 'customer cone' is a reserved
word.

> Thanks for catching me up.

no extra charge

randy