Re: Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE761129410; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3ADTN8LShhe; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E8B1288B8; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cP7JJ-0000K2-Js; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:38:26 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:38:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m260lthebl.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12
In-Reply-To: <148180713687.27658.2938123182879685300.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148180713687.27658.2938123182879685300.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GaoWkpSyOpuoDPXGOzYuveLW4lc>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:38:33 -0000

> I think the document need an editorial review, a lot of text in
> passive language, for example third paragraph in section 1
> "BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an AS's eBGP speaking, AKA border,
> routers, and is designed so that it can be used to protect 
> announcements which are originated by resource constrained edge 
> routers." is written in passive language and it is also a long
> sentence.

-15 has

   BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an AS's eBGP-speaking border
   routers.  It is designed so that it can be used to protect
   announcements which are originated by resource constrained edge
   routers.  This has special operational considerations, see Section 6.

from wikipedia, the authority for everything :)

    Use of the passive in English varies with writing style and field.
    Some publications' style sheets discourage use of the passive
    voice,[3] while others encourage it.[4] Although some purveyors of
    usage advice, including George Orwell in Politics and the English
    Language and William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White in The Elements of
    Style, discourage use of the passive in English, its usefulness is
    generally recognized, particularly in cases where the patient is
    more important than the agent,[5] but also in some cases where it is
    desired to emphasize the agent.

randy