Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Routing Information Export Format with Geo-Location Extensions
draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
Recuse
(David Harrington)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-24)
Unknown
I agree with Stewart's point about physical security, and suggest that you should highlight the point.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-26)
Unknown
I agree with other points raised about revealing physical location, and I have a couple of additional questions: 1. How does the BGP collector obtain the geolocation of its peers? 2. From section 8: It is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and BGP peers consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical coordinates to BGP data collection systems. Depending on the answer to 1, how does the BGP peer control how its geographical coordinates are supplied to the BGP collector?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-22)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 20-Aug-2011 raised two editorial comments. Please consider them. 1. Section 5 "This section is to aide" should be "aid" 2. Section 6 "does not support the the" delete the second "the"
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-23)
Unknown
- MRT is not expanded. - Good luck with the PhD/hope it went well:-)
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-23)
Unknown
6. Security Considerations This extension to the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] defines fields that are of a descriptive nature and provide information that is useful in the analysis of routing systems. As such, the author believes that they do not constitute an additional security risk. It is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and Peers consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical coordinates in MRT dumps. Comment: Isn't there also an enhanced threat in revealing to a physical attacker the precise geographical location of a strategic router?
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-24)
Unknown
Support the other ADs DISCUSS positions on Informational vs. Standards Track Further, the security considerations should at least mention the fact that there's no way to prevent someone from lying about location data, yet would appear to have no bearing at all on BGP operation. It might totally mess up any later analysis someone is trying to use the MRT data for as they'd have little way to validate historic coordinates for a given router.
David Harrington Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown