Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:22:44PM -0400, Jared Mauch: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: > >> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? > > > > I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended > > semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document, > > particularly one with big scary warnings in the security considerations > > section. It needs to be tightened up substantially before publication > > could be considered. > > Looking at section 5 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5635.txt Why wouldn't you want to propogate BH routes? If you want to BH the traffic, then let it be dumped closer to the source. You might accidentally make things exciting for yourself, but it seems like desirable behavior to me. Since BH routes tend to be more specific, most are unlikely to be propogated very far anyhow. I think that the security concern lies far more in the lack of origin validation [with rfc7908 usw.].