> I interpret the proposed charter item to be asking not "if AS_B *should* in > fact be announcing which of AS_A's routes or in what form" but rather roughly > "if AS_B *did* in fact announce which of AS_A's routes and in what form".
Isn't this a difference without a distinction? Let me put it another way. If you claim "A did, in fact, send an update it received from B, which B received from C, to me," what did you intend to _do_ with this information? If you intend to block receipt of the route in the case where the signatures are not "valid," then you automatically moved to, "A should have sent me this update that it received from B, and B received from C." If you sign the update with no filtering, then you've proven what _did_ happen. Once you filter, you're trying to prove what _should_ happen. Can you explain the difference in some other way that doesn't mix the two ideas? :-) Russ
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
