The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8206, "BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7183 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljit...@muada.com> Section: 3 Original Text ------------- Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and therefore do not require coordination with customers, they do not have as much control over the length of the transition period as they might with something completely under their administrative control Corrected Text -------------- Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and therefore do not require coordination with customers, they can transition at any time without delay. Notes ----- I have no corrected text. If the migration methods are transparent, how is it possible that SPs "do not have as much control over the length of the transition period as they might with something completely under their administrative control"? As it's transparent they would in fact have complete administrative control. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8206 (draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-06) -------------------------------------- Title : BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration Publication Date : September 2017 Author(s) : W. George, S. Murphy Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
