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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like:

yes.  do we need to play synonyms when, ab definito, they mean the same
thing?  i chose my words.  as you point out, they are correct.

> Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document?

i think it was shane who wanted them explicitly mentioned.  it seems to
be a fashionable term in grow this season, and i am not sure there is
any benefit to pretending we don't see it.  but i personally do not
care.

>   "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 can live with that

> 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.

as none of the folk you just listed were those specifically asking for
the term "route leaks," if you do not mind, it seems polite to wait a
few days to give them a chance to speak.  i can cut a new version if the
dust settles.

randy