On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Shane Amante <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't, nor do I believe can anyone else. I refer you to the following:
i don't know what your first sentence means. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-03#section-5 > ---snip--- > o "Route leaks" are viewed as a routing security problem by many > operators, even though there is no IETF-codified definition of a > route leak. BGP itself does not include semantics that preclude > what many perceive as route leaks. Moreover, route leaks are > outside the scope of PATHSEC, at this time, based on the SIDR > charter. Thus route leaks are not addressed in this threat model. > ---snip--- > admittedly I'd have probably said in parts: "'Route leaks" are viewed as a routing security problem..." with a reference to the draft in the GROW-WG that talks about how route leaks are a problem to be resolved. > First, the threats document says "there is no IETF-codified definition of a > route leak", > even though there exists the following: > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foo-sidr-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-02> > and, > apparently, based on other messages /no where in the IETF to even discuss it/! I think the 'codified definition' Stephen's looking for is an rfc... I could be wrong though. I also think there are several messages that tell you where you could talk about route leaks. (in the ietf I mean). > Second, there is this sentence: "BGP itself ***does not include semantics*** > that > preclude what many perceive as route leaks." ... That statement reads to me as > stating that _because_ BGP does include semantics to solve for route-leaks, > it's > out-of-scope for PATHSEC. read the sentence again, I think you misread it. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
