Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01.txt

"George, Wes" <> Tue, 01 November 2011 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63E911E853D for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.733
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.730, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kABa9uJq2G9v for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4C611E857E for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,437,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="291936829"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 01 Nov 2011 08:28:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:32:26 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Randy Bush <>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:32:25 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcyYGESaUdaQNmdnR2WNtZmRndQC8QAeeVXQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:32:29 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush []

> > Bgpsec-reqs 3.4 provides a list of operational considerations to
> > discuss. Would probably make sense to ensure that the document covers
> > all of the listed items, perhaps even using those items as section
> > headings for continuity's sake.
> probably more appropriate in the protocol document, or an adjunct to it
> randy

[WEG]] Not certain I understand. This is an operational considerations document, and those are listed as operational considerations. Why would that not be appropriate? How are you making the distinction between what is and is not appropriate?


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.