Gyan,
>I think the document needs to clearly state that the role priority by itself
>does not have an import policy that is automatically configured. The import
>policy is based on OTC Attribute. The document should also clearly state that
>Role priority must be used in conjunction with OTC a
Hi Gyan,
Thank you. Please see the responses inline.
Gyan> Agreed that is acceptable. In the description as well maybe listing a
pecking order similar to what is described in Gao-Rexford model style
route preference in the import and export policy verbiage for each role.
[KS/AA]: That is intere
Hi Gyan,
[I am following up on the messages exchanged between Alvaro and you this
morning. Thanks to both of you for that.]
Sorry for the delay in replying (considering your original review date). Thank
you for your careful review and comments/nits. Please see responses marked with
[KS/AA] be
lto:hous...@vigilsec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol@ietf.org; IETF SecDir
Subject: Re: SecDir Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-20
Sriram:
Thanks for your very comprehensive response to my review
Pete,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and the detailed
comments/suggestions.
I found them all very helpful, and the new version (-05) that I just uploaded
incorporates
the changes you've recommended. Please take a look and let me know if I missed
anything important.
https://tools.
Pete,
I am working on the revision. When I am done making the changes,
should I upload a new version using the IETF submission tool
or should I simply email the .txt or .xml only to you/Gen-art team?
Thanks.
Sriram
-Original Message-
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Wednesday
Pete,
Thank you for your review and comments. I'll be happy to incorporate all the
changes you've suggested.
I've been a bit swamped. What is a reasonable turnaround time for these?
OK if I get this done within the next week or two?
When I am done making the changes, should I upload a version -05