Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 23:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFAA129422; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:20:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 RrUQ32nG2CgR; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 AB6441297B8; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v04NJtRO099106 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:19:56 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:19:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CB20D9E9-3824-45A7-ACC4-42846F443C10@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1C5CE16-D983-49A3-B8BF-965A7FB88EC9@sn3rd.com>
References: <148356402580.12969.9796089522192063819.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D1C5CE16-D983-49A3-B8BF-965A7FB88EC9@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/3kOZuwusbF_CoAIz7X7vSpb8iCQ>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:20:03 -0000
On 4 Jan 2017, at 16:37, Sean Turner wrote: > -2: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol explicitly excludes > non-capitalized >> versions of 2119 words. This draft does not. It seems different 2119 >> approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the >> reader. > > > Where’s that in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol? > > Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft > because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my AD > told me to not capitalize them :) Oops, sorry, I meant to say draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean; are the non-capitalized requirements from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ draft? If not, then the treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as normal English seems to help. Thanks! Ben.
- [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Sean Turner
- Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Sean Turner
- Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Ben Campbell