Re: [sidr] Confederations and Private ASNs (WAS: AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-18)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Borchert, Oliver (Fed) <
[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> To avoid unnecessary confusion with the ambiguity of the word private, I
> would change
> the wording of “the (private) Member-AS Number” to “the Member-AS Number”
> by
> removing the wording of “(private)” within parenthesis.
> This leaves the usage of private only for the signing parties private key
> which I think
> is well understood.
>
> Oliver
>

I'd suggest the use of "private use" in the parenthesis instead of
eliminating the word "private", and maybe add an informational reference to
RFC6996 as well.  If the intent that a "Member-AS Number" is to be from the
private use range as defined in RFC6996, then that should be stated some
place.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================