Steve,
I think the modified introduction text suffices to connect the PATHSEC and
BGPsec terms, but I don't think that referring to the SIDR WG charter for the
PATHSEC goals is reasonable - an RFC is an archive document, whereas a WG
charter is not.
The explanation of "calls for" in the cache
David,
Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's
appropriate to
use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I
propose this modified text for the introduction:
*This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is
intended to op
Thanks!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi Jari,
> Sorry for late response, I have been on vacation all last week and now
> catching up.
> My concern was with the IANA registry which looks OK in version 13 of the
> draft
> Roni
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jari Arkko
> Document: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 30 September 2013
> IETF LC End Date: 1 October 2013
> IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Basically ready for publication as a BCP (but there are some
> LC discussions that should be refl
