IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] review/adoption of draft-george-sidr-as-migration

"Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rogaglia@cisco.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 A789A21F9436 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIXa7chSk+99 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0352721F929F for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13025; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369928666; x=1371138266; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ddhkMA4HbuyhiUx/807Cv3matvW83p02AGpjTIkcXlY=; b=Vm+g9dx0Vqsn3MJWK3co6zqBKq2h2i0Kgo3CM4KO8ChzDFmAhzyo2eRL GCrcSSG7Kwlp7uq7x7zPf2FskI0AXQEHbmK8XAxvFyML7q/1ExIy9NMZB 2z8Rash/edCHp1jcUngRVyFf5BYCEbBQZPvJN7Fq2xrjmjHtLm0e1ph8S E=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 4459
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FANlyp1GtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgkVEMLlUiDt+FnSCIwEBAQMBAQEBawQHBQsCAQgiJAIlCyUCBA4FCAYNh2wGDLtOjVoQgQEtBAeCdmEDkACBLIc7kBeDD4FxNg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,770,1363132800"; d="p7s'?scan'208,217"; a="216793097"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 15:44:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4UFiO6b005424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2013 15:44:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.15]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 30 May 2013 10:44:23 -0500
From: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com>
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] review/adoption of draft-george-sidr-as-migration
Thread-Index: AQHOXUyOyXB9njV5wUySjq73F/58qA==
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <EF4348D391D0334996EE9681630C83F0220E6B06@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230433EF5B73@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230433EF5B73@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.254.17.107]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C79C2248-AA7D-4E9D-ABFE-316DB4701243"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sidr wg list (sidr@ietf.org)" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] review/adoption of draft-george-sidr-as-migration
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:44:36 -0000

Hi George, 

Thanks for writing this document, I think it is very good work!

One comment before sending my support email. The document is intended as "Informational" but do have requirement language. Is this what you intended?

Personally, I would rather all requirements to be moved to the requirements document so we have one unique point to read. We could publish then this document even as a "BCP" on a specific practice. Does point 3.15 of the BGPSEC requirements document seams not to cover your own requirements in Section 4. Do you think we can move the BGPSEC specific requirements to the other document?

Regards,
Roque

On May 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:

> All – I have not received any feedback regarding this draft since I posted the revision incorporating the solution into it in February. Perhaps it’s time to call WG adoption so that it can move forward?
>  
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-sidr-as-migration-01
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Wes George
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status