On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:40:51AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Ben - > > Inline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 5:27 PM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; idr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-idr- > > te-pm-bgp.all@xxxxxxxx; secdir@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-13 > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:00:13PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > > Yoav – > > > > > > In regards to the risks associated with advertising the specific information > > covered in this draft we have a statement in the IGP drafts: > > > > > > From RFC7810 > > > > > > “The sub-TLVs introduced in this document allow an operator to > > > advertise state information of links (bandwidth, delay) that could be > > > sensitive and that an operator may not want to disclose.” > > > > > > In regards to the risks associated with sending information via BGP-LS we > > have a number of statements in RFC 7752 – most relevant is: > > > > > > “Additionally, it may be considered that the export of link-state and > > > TE information as described in this document constitutes a risk to > > > confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive > > > information about the network.” > > > > > > So long as there are references to both the IGP RFCs and RFC 7752 I am > > therefore hard pressed to understand what else could be usefully said. > > > Certainly the risks associated with the BGP-LS transport mechanism are not > > altered by adding some new TLVs – and since the IGP RFCs have already > > covered risks associated with the specific class of information (not simply the > > risks associated with the transport mechanism) you are going to have to > > provide more specifics on what can meaningfully be said that is not already > > covered in the references. > > > > My apologies for jumping in in the middle, but IIUC the IGP RFCs have > > covered the risks associated with a specific class of information, *under the > > assumption that the transport mechanism is within a single AS and > > administrative domain*. Yoav is pointing out that the risks for that > > information may change when the distribution is over a broader domain than > > the one for which the previous analysis was performed. > > > > [Les:] IGP RFCs talk both about the risks associated with the transport (which are indeed bound to a single AS) and the risks associated with the particular class of information. > > RFC 7752 talks about the risks associated with distribution using BGP-LS as the transport and the risks associated with the class of information. > > Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810#section-11 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-8 in their entirety. > > Unless you want to argue that the risk associated with distributing the information defined in this document is qualitatively different than the risk associated with (for example) "Unreserved Bandwidth" defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-3.3.2 I have no idea what to say. You are going to have to help me here. I'm not sure I can commit to that reading list until the document gets on a telechat (this week's is a pretty big one), but hopefully Yoav can work on a faster scale than me. Thank you for the specific references; it does seem like we can converge pretty quickly. -Ben
