coming back to this discussion... On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > perhaps people should use a dictionary and look up "per se."
(from dictionary.com, or wherever bing.com 'define per se' comes from) per se 1. by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically. so, as I read the original: "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol. Issues of business relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset, while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this document. It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in the future." I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like: "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol. Issues of business relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset, while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are not intrinsically security issues, and are outside the scope of this document. It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in the future." Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document? Could we go with: "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol. Issues of business relationship conformance, while quite important to operators, are not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this document. It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in the future." I think this was in line with warren's suggestion, which wes agreed with as did stephen kent. This seems ok to me as well... I'd like to close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a publication request. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
