> A) It's too early for nit edits
not really. as the iesg has approved this one, changes are going to be
a process pain. so this message pushes back on some of your suggestions
which i would otherwise have gladly taken.
perhaps the sponsoring AD will give me/us some guidance in this.
also plea
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:44 -0800, Randy Bush said:
>
> RB> As you say, NetConf is for *configuring* routers. RPKI-rtr is not used
> RB> for router configuration, but rather dynamic data, a la IS-IS or BGP.
> RB> In fact, the RPKI-rtr p
Just finished (finally) scanning the rpki-rtr document (-25 version) and
have a few notes about it. Over all, though, nicely done ID. Thanks!
A) It's too early for nit edits, but this one just jumped at me and I
couldn't ignore it.
5.1, 3rd paragraph(/sentence): is only -> is *the* only
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:56:44 -0800, Randy Bush said:
RB> As you say, NetConf is for *configuring* routers. RPKI-rtr is not used
RB> for router configuration, but rather dynamic data, a la IS-IS or BGP.
RB> In fact, the RPKI-rtr payload data go into the same data structure as
RB> the BGP da
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:16:03 -0800 (PST), rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org said:
r> A [^h MANY] new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC
libraries.
r> RFC 6480
r> RFC 6481
r> RFC 6482
r> RFC 6483
r> RFC 6484 (BCP173)
r> RFC 6485
r> RFC 6486
r> RFC 6487
r> RFC 6488
r> RFC 64
