[RPSEC] Follow-up on discussion on BGP session security draft

["Michael H. Behringer" <mbehring at cisco.com>]

Following up on the discussion we had in the WG meeting, on
draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-01.txt. [Thanks for the excellent
minutes, Geoff!]

The key issue as I see it is the scope of the document and the potential
overlap with
draft-bellovin-tcpsec-01.txt. (The other issues are
comparatively minor, and will be addressed after we clarified the scope
of the doc.) Let me try to address those here. 

- Scope of the document. 

Strictly speaking the WG is focusing on *protocol* security requirements,
ie, the BGP protocol specific security stuff. Right now my doc addresses
a wider scope, namely all the security mechanisms that a BGP speaker
should implement to secure a BGP peering. This includes mechanisms on
several layers. So strictly speaking the doc is out of scope. However, if
we are that strict, *nothing* is going to be in scope for BGP, not even
the bellovin draft, since tcpsec is not part of the BGP protocol either.
;-)  

It was also pointed out that the document is a mix between operational
requirements, and implementation requirements. That needs to be clarified
as well. (At least what the intention is.)

My goal was to address real, practical requirements (leave out detailed
discussion here, there is still a lot of work to be done). I agree the
scope needs refining, along what I wrote above, and I'll give it a try. I
am open for suggestions. 

But having discussed with various people, I think, assuming the fixes
above, we are in agreement that this scope is correct, and fits into the
WG charter. Is this correct? 

- Overlap with
draft-bellovin-tcpsec-01.txt

I *had* actually read the -00 draft, but forgot to add the
reference. I think that the two documents address a different problem
space. The Bellovin draft is TCP specific, not focused on BGP. However,
it is an excellent analysis of the security requirements for this space.
It is clear that my document must reference the Bellovin draft, and must
also explain how the two documents fit together. This will also be
addressed. 
Can we have a vote: With those clarifications, does the document fit into
the WG charter? 

[If there is consensus, I will address the other points raised in version
-02]

Thanks for your feedback!
Michael



_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec