Internet-Draft nasr-names February 2024
Richardson & Liu Expires 29 August 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
anima Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-richardson-nasr-terminology-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
C. Liu
Huawei Technologies

Terminology and Use cases for Secured Routing Infrastructure

Abstract

This document collects terminology and use cases for Secured Routing.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-nasr-terminology/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the nasr Working Group mailing list (mailto:nasr@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nasr/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nasr/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/mcr/nasr-terminology.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 August 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document collects terminology in use for various secured routing efforts.

In addition, it may collect use cases that explain the terminology.

This documents is not intended to ever be published.

2. Terminology

Although this document is not an IETF Standards Track publication, it adopts the conventions for normative language to provide clarity of instructions to the implementer. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Secure routing:

A abstract term that applies to all of the various work at both control plane and forwarding plane.

Path Validation:

an examination of control plane messages (such as BGP) to validate that the planned route is correct.

Proof of Transit:

an examination of data plane messages to provide evidence that the planned route was the one used

Planned Route:

unsure

3. Use Cases

TBD

4. Security Considerations

Just words, no protocols in this document.

5. IANA Considerations

This document makes no requests to IANA.

6. Acknowledgements

Hello.

7. Changelog

8. Normative References

[BCP14]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Contributors

Meiling Chen

Authors' Addresses

Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Chunchi (Peter) Liu
Huawei Technologies