Hi Matt,
A few notes below (one editorial and one substantive). There is a typo in this sentence (page 11): In particular, the BGPsec attribute SHOULD NOT be removed even in the case where the BGPsec update message *has not* been that *has not* successfully validated. Repeat of 'has not' above. May be the sentence was meant to read as follows? In particular, the BGPsec attribute SHOULD NOT be removed even in the case where the BGPsec update message has not been validated (not attempted) or has not been successfully validated. Substantive comment .... Looking at this on page 23, "BGPsec update messages do not contain an AS_PATH attribute. Therefore, a BGPsec speaker MUST utilize the AS path information in the BGPsec_Path attribute in all cases where it would otherwise use the AS path information in the AS_PATH attribute. The only exception to this rule is when AS path information must be updated in order to propagate a route to a peer (in which case the BGPsec speaker follows the instructions in Section 4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-13#section-4>)." What is being said in the second sentence above is not clear. No exception applies if the peer is BGPsec capable and negotiated BGPsec. So is the exception for the case when the peer is non-BGPsec? May the fix is to replace this (current): "The only exception to this rule is when AS path information must be updated in order to propagate a route to a peer (in which case the BGPsec speaker follows the instructions in Section 4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-13#section-4>)." with the following (proposed): The only exception to this rule is when AS path information must be re-formatted to AS_PATH in order to propagate a route to a non-BGPsec peer (in which case the BGPsec speaker follows the instructions in Section 4.4). Sriram
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
