Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your reply. I am sorry that my email client did something weird
with the formating!

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:51 PM Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> >     - Since RFC4271 and RFC6480 are stated as mandatory reading to
> > understand
> >       this I-D in section 2, shouldn’t they be normative references?
>
> i will be interested in others' feedback on this one.  i take normative
> as needed to implement, not as needed to have clue :)
>
>
I usually go by this IESG statement -
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/;
which says - "Normative references specify documents that must be read to
understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology
must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work."  Just FYI


i have pushed -04.  i hope the diff does not cause heartburn to anyone.
>
>
I saw these nits in the diff -

OLD:
   When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of
   the is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid per [RFC6811].
NEW:
   When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of
   the prefix is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid as per [RFC6811].

--

s/evaluation state/validation state/

--

Thanks Again!

Regards,
Dhruv