BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-18
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -16)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-12-13 for -16)
Unknown
Thanks for your work on this and it's good to hear there are interoperable implementations (after reading the responses to other comments).
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-10 for -16)
Unknown
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new algorithms are needed. Is this specified in one of referenced documents?
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-12 for -16)
Unknown
As noted by Jouni in his OPS DIR review, and acknowledged by Sean Turner > o Section 7 IANA Considerations says on line 192: > "Infrastructure (RPKI) group. The one-octet BGPsec Algorithm Suite” > ^^^^^^^^^ > However, in the following table and text it says nothing about > values 0x10-0xff. Are these unassigned or reserved? This is a bit > confusing since the table lists values up to 0xF (one-nibble). Sigh - that should be: +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0x2-0xEF | Unassigned | Unassigned | This draft | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+ | 0xFF | Reserved | Reserved | This draft | +------------+------------+-------------+---------------------+
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-12 for -16)
Unknown
Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying something like in the sheperd write-up: "[...] there are published references that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those mentioned in RFC6090. RFC6090 notes that its descriptions "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without using any of the specialized methods that were developed in following years."" I know we usuall don't do things like this. But I'm wondering how someone who wants to implement this should figure this out otherwise....?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-13 for -16)
Unknown
- As Randy commented, if the goal is to smallerise the packets, it'd have been nice to use eddsa here but I assume that wasn't practical due to the timing and the number of RPKI elements that'd need to be defined for that? Is that right? Did the WG consider using 25519 instead of p256? If not, is it worth asking, just in case everyone loves the idea more than this? - Documents like this are better with test vectors included or referenced. Couldn't you add those or some pointers to those? - To answer Mirja's point: Anyone who knows RFC6090 knows that it more or less only exists because of IPR silliness. And sadly, even though 6090 only references documents that predate relevant IPR filings by >20 years, even 6090 still got an (IMO also silly) IPR declaration. [1] Sheesh, but whaddya gonna do? :-( Anyway, I don't think there's a need to, or benefit from, adding text here about the well-known situation with ECC IPR that I believe stymied deployment for at least a decade. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=6090&submit=rfc
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown