Hi! I don’t have anything in my archive either. :-(
I just poked the authors… Alvaro. On 9/26/17, 5:59 AM, "Eric Rescorla" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have some memory that someone responded that this wasn't a security requirement, but I can't find that now. -Ekr On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-13: Discuss 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-bess-evpn-etree/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not clear to me if the prohibition on leaf-to-leaf communications is intended to be a security requirement. If so, it seems like it needs to explicitly state why it is not possible for ACs which are leaf to pretend to be root. If not, then it should say so. Additionally, this solution appears to rely very heavily on filtering, so I believe some text about what happens during periods of filtering inconsistency (and what the impact on the security is).
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
