I concur and I’ve got an editor’s copy with all the changes incorporated.
Unless I hear otherwise I’ll hold off on posting until we’ve collected and
addressed all of the other IETF LC comments.
spt
> On Dec 05, 2016, at 11:37, Steve KENT wrote:
>
> Alvaro,
>
> Thanks for the careful review.
That workd for me.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 12/6/16, 4:08 PM, "Sean Turner" mailto:s...@sn3rd.com>>
wrote:
I concur and I’ve got an editor’s copy with all the changes incorporated.
Unless I hear otherwise I’ll hold off on posting until we’ve collected and
addressed all of the other IETF LC commen
Randy:
Hi!
In thinking about this point some more…what about draft-ietf-sidr-slurm? Isn’t
that supposed to address the private space?
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 12/2/16, 12:56 PM, "Randy Bush" mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote:
M4. Still in Section 7: “To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP
Confed
alvaro,
> In thinking about this point some more…what about
> draft-ietf-sidr-slurm? Isn’t that supposed to address the private
> space?
>
> M4. Still in Section 7: “To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP
> Confederations [RFC5065], a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of a
> Confederation
> M4. Still in Section 7: “To prevent exposure of the internals of BGP
> Confederations [RFC5065], a BGPsec speaker which is a Member-AS of a
> Confederation MUST NOT sign updates sent to another Member-AS of the
> same Confederation.” This is another case where the BGPSec spec says
> something di
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF.
Title : BGPsec Operational Considerations
Author : Randy Bush
Filename: draft-ietf-sidr-bgps