Hi Alissa,
Thanks for your review and comments.
We will correct the improper normative language in section 7 in next version.
As for the security considerations, we will discuss among coauthors and come
back to you.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 10:22 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-commun...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: 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-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Section 7:
>
> "BGP speakers that support the extended message SHOULD be careful to
>export the BGP communities in the IPFIX message properly, so that
>they only convey as many communities as possible in the IPFIX
>message. The Collector which receives an IPFIX message with maximum
>length and BGP communities contained in its data set SHOULD be aware
>that the BGP communities may be truncated due to limited message
>space."
>
> This uses normative language improperly. "SHOULD be careful" and "SHOULD
> be aware" are not actionable by implementations. It seems like in the first
> case
> this is trying to convey something more like "SHOULD only convey as many
> communities as possible without exceeding the 65536-byte limit of an IPFIX
> message." The second one seems like it should not be a normative
> recommendation.
>
> Section 8:
>
> "This document itself does not directly introduce any new security issues."
>
> I question whether this is true. The motivation for the document describes the
> use of BGP communities in IPFIX as inputs to, e.g., traffic optimization
> applications. Given that there are known problems associated with the
> integrity and authenticity of BGP communities (e.g., [1]), couldn't the
> propagation of false BGP communities to these other applications cause the
> applications to misbehave in ways above and beyond whatever damage the
> false communities do to the operation of BGP itself?
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-grow-bgp-com
> munities-spread-their-wings-01
>
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg