Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

coming back to this discussion...

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
> perhaps people should use a dictionary and look up "per se."

(from dictionary.com, or wherever bing.com 'define per se' comes from)
per se
1. by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.

so, as I read the original:

  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are
   not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."

I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like:
  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while quite important to operators (as are many other things), are
   not intrinsically security issues, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."


Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document?
Could we go with:

  "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, while quite important to operators, are
   not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
   document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
   the future."

I think this was in line with warren's suggestion, which wes agreed
with as did stephen kent. This seems ok to me as well... I'd like to
close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a
publication request.

-chris