On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:25 PM, George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote:
> Gave this a review, and stumbled across an issue that may not necessarily > be gating to this draft, but should probably be addressed in some other > drafts. … > > Substantive: I had to think through this for a bit to make sure I > understood why this is true beyond the obvious problem of AS23456 not > being unique. I think we need some additional words explaining why, though > I am not sure if it belongs here, in the protocol draft, or in sriram's > design-choices doc (7.6 is very thin on explanation). I think that this is > a specific corner case for the more generic case of incremental > deployment, where a given path has some routers/ASNs that support BGPSec > and some that do not, and as far as I can tell, incremental deployment > isn't really discussed as a concept beyond the [non]negotiation of support > between peers. > > Do you think the bgpsec-ops draft is the right place for that discussion? Sriram’s draft is an individual submission, not a wg draft. Sriram can put text there if he wants. But it’s not subject to wg consensus. —Sandy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
