Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

Thanks! No further comments from my side. Looing forward to publication. Cheers matthias On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Randy Bush wrote: > > I read v09. No objections only minor comments: > > i hacked in many of these changes, though i think most did not really > change anything other than an

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

> I read v09. No objections only minor comments: i hacked in many of these changes, though i think most did not really change anything other than an alternate way of saying the same thing. but i just do not want to see this go on an on interminably. and at least you reviewed it. thanks!

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

matthias, > one more: Can you please replace "Invalid" by "Not Valid", because > this is the notation defined in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-17. done. randy ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

Hi Randy, one more: Can you please replace "Invalid" by "Not Valid", because this is the notation defined in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-17. Thanks matthias On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Matthias Waehlisch wrote: > Hi, > > I read v09. No objections only minor comments: > > line 102:

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

Hi, I read v09. No objections only minor comments: line 102: BGPsec need*s* *to* be spoken only line 104: s/by small edge routers/by resource constrained edge routers/ line 119: *see* [RFC4271] line 159: s//etc./ lines 200-206 seem redudant to lines 208-213 line 202

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

> Line 94: There’s a typo: “twp” instead of “two” > Line 202: Grammatical error: “it’s” instead of “its” > Line 317: Typo: “see see” instead of “see” >> BGPsec protocol capability negotiation provides for a speaker signing >>the data it sends without being able to accept signed data. Thus

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

I read it and think it answer the mail. Ship it. spt > On Jun 15, 2016, at 08:35, Sandra Murphy wrote: > > It is a short document. The sentences are not complicated. It reads quickly. > > There’s been little/no wg comment on this, certainly no controversy, over the >

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

No responses at all. Come on folks. It’s a short document, like Chris says. You should be able to read and comment without much trouble. —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs On Jun 1, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: > > Howdy WG folks, > Please take

[sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

Howdy WG folks, Please take this note as the start of the 2wk WGLC period for: Abstract: "Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and present