Re: [GROW] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07

["Hankins, Greg (Nokia - US)" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:19:34AM -0700, Dale Worley wrote:
>This paragraph is a good introduction, but it isn't very cohesive.  I
>suggest revising the third sentence to something like:
>
>   This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported
>   nor exported unless specifically enabled by configuration, thus
>   reducing the consequences of these problems, and so improving the
>   default level of Internet routing security.

Hi Dale, this paragraphs seems wordy now, so I would suggested splitting
sentences as follows:

This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported nor
exported unless specifically enabled by configuration.  The solution
reduces the consequences of these problems, and improves the default level
of Internet routing security.

>You probably want to s/a compliant BGP implementation/compliant BGP
>implementations/, unless you are describing the process for an
>individual operator, not for all operators collectively.

As Job said, this was a transition consideration for BGP implementers.

How about this change for clarity:
- old: It is anticipated that transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation
will require a process thay may take several years.
- new: Transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation may require a software
development and release process that can take implementers several years.

I attached a new -07 -> -08 htmldiff that incorporates my edits and
Job's edits.

Greg

--
Greg Hankins <[e-mail]>