Re: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 05/05/16 22:35, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> Stephen:
> 
> Thank you for your review and comments.
> In our off-list discussion, we agreed that using "propagation" in the definition is fine.
> Hence, not making any change in the document in regards to this.

Yes - you correctly corrected my ignorance:-)

Thanks,
S.

> 
> Sriram 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GROW [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 7:04 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition/
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - Thanks for doing this. The set of references alone seems particularly valuable.
> 
> - section 2, does "propagation" in the definition mean that purely faked announcement messages (ignoring RPKI for the moment) that overlap with genuine announcements cannot be considered route-leaks?  From the receiver POV, those would not be distinct. It was probably already suggested but if not, do you think would s/propagation/receipt/ or similar be a little better?
>