Subject: [Lsvr] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: (with BLOCK)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:20:15 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lsvr-00-04: Block

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

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsvr/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:27:26 +0000

Hi Kathleen, 

On 2/7/18, 10:22 AM, "Lsvr on behalf of Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    

You'll notice that our charter items extend BGP for this purpose so it is not a completely new protocol and we will be able to avail the applicable BGP security and privacy mechanisms. Hence, I think "Security and Privacy Considerations" are appropriate. 

Thanks,
Acee 

    _______________________________________________
    Lsvr mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:47:14 -0800

On February 7, 2018 at 10:20:15 AM, Kathleen Moriarty (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Kathleen:

Hi!

I'd prefer to see that there will be security properties in the protocol
rather
than just security and privacy considerations. The latter could just be an
explanation of all the possible bad things that could happen with a protocol

I’m not sure exactly what you want to add.  Can you please suggest text?

As Acee mentioned, lsvr builds on top of BGP, so enhancing the base just
for lsvr applications shouldn’t be a goal.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:56:55 -0800

Kathleen:

Hi!

After reading your comments on the rift charter…

One of the items that is not included in this charter is a Threat
Analysis.  Are you looking for that analysis, *and* explicit mitigation as
identified there?  If so, then we can definitely add that — with the
understanding that this WG may not be able to address all the mitigations
because they might need to be addressed in the BGP base (by idr).

Let me know if I’m on the right track.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On February 7, 2018 at 12:47:14 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email-masked])
wrote:

Kathleen:

Hi!

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:46:23 +0900

hi kathleen,

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

point taken.  while i don't think lsvr is as far along the sec path as
rift is, i am not sure it should be at this point.  as if what i thought
was relevant :)

having looked at bgp security a bit on occasion, i agree with your
worry.  what i suggest go in the charter are words to the effect that
  o the security properties of this change to bgp will be studied and
    documented
  o new and existing exposures will be explored and documented, and
  o either mitigations will be included in the work, or resulting
    documents will make clear how the operator can mitigate or why
    we should not worry our little heads.

cool?

randy

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:50:14 -0500

Hi, all.

Randy's suggestions look very helpful and on point, thanks for taking
the time to come up with some text.  Sorry for my late response, it's
been a busy day!

Thank you,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:57:00 +0900

> the time to come up with some text.  Sorry for my late response, it's

good people have long queues.  no blame.  this explains why i have so
short a queue.

i do not know who actually has the pen.  i suspect i will be getting a
nastygram from them soon.  if i had the pen, the charter would be a bit
different.  which explains why they do not let me have the pen.

>> what i suggest go in the charter are words to the effect that

randy

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:41:32 -0800

On February 7, 2018 at 10:50:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty (
[email-masked]) wrote:

[Thanks Randy!!]

Kathleen:

Hi!

I took Randy’s suggestions and added a paraphrased version to the text.  It
now reads:

 - Specification documenting protocol extensions required to efficiently
reuse
BGP to distribute LSVs within an IPv4/IPv6 DC with scope to include privacy
and security considerations
    - The impact of these extensions to the security properties of BGP will
be
   studied and documented
    - New attack vectors will be explored and documented
    - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed
and
   documented

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:15:12 -0500

Thank you!  I'll change my position now.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On February 7, 2018 at 10:50:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
> [Thanks Randy!!]
>
> Kathleen:
>
> Hi!
>
>     - Mitigations to any new attack vectors identified will be discussed and
>    documented
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen