Re: [sidr] Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 12:38 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 BE761129410; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 R3ADTN8LShhe; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 96E8B1288B8; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cP7JJ-0000K2-Js; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:38:26 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:38:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m260lthebl.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <148180713687.27658.2938123182879685300.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148180713687.27658.2938123182879685300.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/FP1vUNHrycAZw5yIxyB4Gy1kxc8>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:38:33 -0000
> I think the document need an editorial review, a lot of text in
> passive language, for example third paragraph in section 1
> "BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an AS's eBGP speaking, AKA border,
> routers, and is designed so that it can be used to protect
> announcements which are originated by resource constrained edge
> routers." is written in passive language and it is also a long
> sentence.
-15 has
BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an AS's eBGP-speaking border
routers. It is designed so that it can be used to protect
announcements which are originated by resource constrained edge
routers. This has special operational considerations, see Section 6.
from wikipedia, the authority for everything :)
Use of the passive in English varies with writing style and field.
Some publications' style sheets discourage use of the passive
voice,[3] while others encourage it.[4] Although some purveyors of
usage advice, including George Orwell in Politics and the English
Language and William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White in The Elements of
Style, discourage use of the passive in English, its usefulness is
generally recognized, particularly in cases where the patient is
more important than the agent,[5] but also in some cases where it is
desired to emphasize the agent.
randy