Thanks for the review, Christer! On 18 Sep 2014, at 22:40, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jerome, > >>> Q_4_2: The last sentence says "For a more detailed recommendation, see >>> RFC6192 [18].". Recommendation on what? >> >> Recommendation of router protection (section title) I propose we clarify >> that in the text: >> >> "For a more detailed recommendation on how to protect the router's control >> plane, see RFC6192 [18] > > > Looks good. > >>> Section 5: >>> >>> Q_5_1: The name of section 5 uses "BGP sessions", but the >>> section text does not say anything about BGP sessions. And, in section 5.1 >>> you only >>> talk about "TCP sessions used by BGP". Only in section 5.2 do you >>> mention "BGP session". Perhaps you should add some general text to section >>> 5 >>> about BGP sessions, how TCP is used to transport BGP messages in BGP >>> sessions etc, and then in section 5.1 only talk about protection of TCP. >> >> OK, I'll see how to clearly add session key word in first paragraph of 5. > > Thanks! This was the main editorial issue I had with the document, so > hopefully you'll find a way to make it more clear :) > > Thanks! > > Regards, > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
