> route leaks, as we anecdotally know them, are an operational problem.
> imiho, they are not particularly a security problem. but that does not
> mean i think the ietf routing community should not be working on a
> solution, quite the opposite.
You're walking through the office and see someone
> as has been said many times, we agree route leaks are a problem. they
> are not the only problem.
>
> please do not send me any more email without a proposed solution.
Generally speaking, the best path to good engineering is to define the
problem first, then suggest solutions. I understand th
Brian Dickson wrote:
>...
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:42:15 -0500
>
> If a draft is accepted in its current state, then any promises by the
> authors to make changes are much like promises by politicians during
> election campaigns - not worth the paper they are written on.
While technically tr
Dear all,
the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room)
of this WG session at IETF-85 is available.
You can watch it by accessing the following URL:
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/recordings
For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recording in
the min
Hi Brian,
At 08:42 09-11-2012, Brian Dickson wrote:
An adoption call should have three (or four) responses:
Ready for Adoption
Needs more work BEFORE Adoption
Should not (never) be adopted
Abstain/don't care
The "needs more work" is the way that WG participants can hold
authors/editors account
On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Russ White wrote:
>
> 2. Providers have said (on this list and otherwise) that they are not
> willing to release _any_ policy in _any_ way, _ever_ into the hands of
> _anyone_ (even, "this peer is not a transit AS").
Actually, some subset of providers allegedly said t
