The comment from me about "to provide that new draft" was a comment about a new version of the router certs draft (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles), so your comment applies.
The minutes note your comment during the discussion with Rob suggesting the need for more than one AS in the router certificates. The minutes do not note the draft name, and maybe should be amended to do so to be clear. --Sandy ________________________________________ From: sidr [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Stephen Kent [k...@bbn.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:22 PM To: sidr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] Updates to rpki-rtr protocol (RFC 6810 bis) Sandy, > >From conversation with authors, answers below > >> I would expect that adding a new PDU would be a new document, not a revision >> to the >> protocol document. Would you agree? > Answer: depends on the PDU > > >> Is somebody already on board to provide that new draft? > I missed the import of the following captured in the minutes: > > Steve Kent: As an author, we can fix this > > Answer: "yes". I think the minutes associated my comment from above with the wrong discussion. I think I made that comment in response to a suggested change to the router cert I-D, to allow more than one AS to appear in a router cert. Steve _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
