I think this means you are asking for a WGLC, yes?
If so we can ship a note to the list (here) about that...
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Matthew Lepinski
wrote:
> I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification.
>
> This version includes some minor fixes as well as all o
On Jun 18, 2015, at 5:15 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I think this means you are asking for a WGLC, yes?
Not necessarily. The draft went into wglc in January. Matt discussed his
planned response to the comments received at IETF92. This version includes
those changes.
> If so we can s
On 2015-06-19 14:00, Sandra Murphy wrote:
Anyone who commented on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11.txt is
encouraged to review this version and report if your comments have or
have not been addressed.
My comments have been addressed, but I have some questions about the
way one of them was a
David,
Thanks a lot for raising this issue.
Based on the discussion in Dallas, I was hoping that we could just go with
the clean approach of including the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute in the
signature.
As you correctly point out, we can't sign MP_REACH_NLRI, because the
"Network Address of Next Hop"
The -13 revision addresses all of my questions, thanks.
On 2015-07-06 19:26, Matthew Lepinski wrote:
David,
Thanks a lot for raising this issue.
Based on the discussion in Dallas, I was hoping that we could just go
with the clean approach of including the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute in
the signatu
Matt -
I finally got a chance to review the updates you put in for –12 and 13. It has
addressed most of the concerns I raised. Only thing I see missing is this
comment from my previous review.
Section 5.2 - elsewhere in the document (7.3), you note that validation
should stop when an invalid si
see skip-out logic in expression evaluation
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> see skip-out logic in expression evaluation
a friend just whacked me for being obscure by using compiler and
language geekery. sorry.
when evaluating
A & B, if A is false, there is no sense evaluating B.
A | B, if A is true, there is no sense evaluating B.
this sometimes surprises new
Wes,
Sorry for the delay. I completely agree with you that the text in 7.1 could
be more clear. I appreciate your suggested change and I am happy to issue a
quick revision to clarify this issue.
With regards to the validation algorithm (Section 5.2), I am not convinced
there is a problem. The doc
From: Matthew Lepinski
mailto:mlepinski.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 1:31 AM
To: "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>>
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org<mailto:sidr@ietf.org>" mailto:sidr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [sidr] New Version: dr
10 matches
Mail list logo
