Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:46:45 -0400

coming back to this discussion...

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> perhaps people should use a dictionary and look up "per se."

(from dictionary.com, or wherever bing.com 'define per se' comes from)
per se
1. by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.

so, as I read the original:

  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are
   not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."

I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like:
  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are
   not intrinsically security issues, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."

Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document?
Could we go with:

  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, while quite important to operators, are
   not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."

I think this was in line with warren's suggestion, which wes agreed
with as did stephen kent. This seems ok to me as well... I'd like to
close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a
publication request.

-chris

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:55:01 +0900

> I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like:

yes.  do we need to play synonyms when, ab definito, they mean the same
thing?  i chose my words.  as you point out, they are correct.

> Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document?

i think it was shane who wanted them explicitly mentioned.  it seems to
be a fashionable term in grow this season, and i am not sure there is
any benefit to pretending we don't see it.  but i personally do not
care.

>    document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in

i can live with that

> close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a

as none of the folk you just listed were those specifically asking for
the term "route leaks," if you do not mind, it seems polite to wait a
few days to give them a chance to speak.  i can cut a new version if the
dust settles.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:00:42 +0900

while checking the docco, i found

   3.14  While the trust level of a route should be determined by the
         BGPsec protocol, local routing preference and policy MUST then
         be applied to best path and other routing decisions.  Such
         mechanisms SHOULD conform with [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].
...
   3.17  If a BGPsec design makes use of a security infrastructure, that
         infrastructure SHOULD enable each network operator to select
         the entities it will trust when authenticating data in the
         security infrastructure.  See, for example,
         [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].

those references would seem to be obe.  dunno what to do with the first,
drop it?  the second might ref lta-use-cases.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:24:03 -0400

> thing?  i chose my words.  as you point out, they are correct.

I'm not an english teacher :( I'm just trying to see if there's middle
ground or if the already used wording is fine, given other possible
wordings which may seem less clunky to others.

> any benefit to pretending we don't see it.  but i personally do not

I was looking for the explicit: "its here because X and Y and Z asked for it."
(shane and a few others, yes.) So on the one hand keeping the mention
of leaks seems still to be important.

> few days to give them a chance to speak.  i can cut a new version if the

waiting seems ok to me, can we agree to agree by ~4/23/2014 (next wednesday) ?

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:24:53 -0400

> drop it?  the second might ref lta-use-cases.

losing the last sentence in the first seems ok.
and the second moving to use-cases seems ok to me...

-chris

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:56:44 +0900

> I'm not an english teacher

my paternal grandmother was.  even when i was barely writing, she would
return my letters with red ink corrections.  i thought it normal. :)

>> i think it was shane who wanted them explicitly mentioned.  it seems
>> to be a fashionable term in grow this season, and i am not sure there
>> is any benefit to pretending we don't see it.  but i personally do
>> not care.
> I was looking for the explicit: "its here because X and Y and Z asked
> for it."  (shane and a few others, yes.) So on the one hand keeping
> the mention of leaks seems still to be important.

or it could be obe.  don't know.  did someone see harm in mentioning
route leaks?  as i said, i have no dog in this fight.

> waiting seems ok to me, can we agree to agree by ~4/23/2014 (next

i will be on yet another journey, so please remind me if you would.  i
already cut your text into my emacs edit buffer.

> losing the last sentence in the first seems ok.  and the second moving
> to use-cases seems ok to me...

anyone else have input on this one, well, these two?

randy