On 3/18/15, 11:10 PM, "David Mandelberg" wrote:
>Are you suggesting comparison of all the data from each single cache as
>an atomic entity, or comparison of individual IPvX and Router Key PDUs?
>
>If the former, then I think that would work fine as long as a majority
>(or maybe even a plurality)
I reviewed this draft and examining section 5.10 Router Key,
I noticed that the format/encoding on the wire of the key is not
specified.
The required format/encoding of the key e.g. DER is needed to assure
a correct implementation and interoperability.
Oliver
Our meeting is Monday morning. The meeting can not begin unless we have a
minutes taker and a jabber scribe.
Anyone who is willing to volunteer for either role, send a message to
sidr-cha...@ietf.org.
--Sandy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_
On Mar 09, 2015, at 21:07, Richard Hansen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have submitted a bis of RFC6487 as a -00 individual submission, and
> will be presenting it in Dallas.
>
> It's a minor change from RFC6487. Changes incorporated:
> * all 3 verified errata
Faithfully includes the errata I submi
