Sriram, Thanks again for your comments.
> 在 2018年1月30日，04:36，Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> > 写道： > > David, Di, Tim: > > These are minor comments in alignment with Alvaro’s. > > Alvaro wrote: > >> M4. References: > >> M4.1. s/I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview/rfc8205 ...and should be Normative. > >> M4.3. [minor] Please update the references according to the Nits [1]. > >> [1] >> https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04.txt >> > > With regard to updating the references, I noticed that the draft references > [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] in two places where it should reference > BGPsec Protocol Specification [RFC 8205]. For example, on page 3: > > (Validation of the origin of a route is > described in [RFC6483], and validation of the path of a route is > described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview].) > > For “validation of the path of a route” the pointer should be Section 5 of > RFC 8205. Yes. We should make the change. > > AFAIK, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] is expired and there are no plans to > publish it. > > I would also suggest that both RFCs 6483 and 6811 can be referenced when > talking about “Validation of the origin of a route.” RFC 6811 is Standards > Track > while 6483 is Informational. Agreed. RFC 6811 is more competent to talk about Validation of the origin of a route. Di > > Thanks. > > Sriram > _______________________________________________ > 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
