Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015)

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

On 10/15/15, 7:02 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Do you think the bgpsec-ops draft is the right place for that discussion?
>
>Sriram’s draft is an individual submission, not a wg draft.

WG] Well, I'm the wrong person to answer that question because I feel like
SIDR is especially bad about making the reader chase things across
multiple drafts in some mistaken attempt to make the individual documents
more concise. I had to go look at 3 or 4 documents (the BGPsec overview
intro references 8) in order to see if there was more info available
discussing this point that was confusing me, and from Sriram's response
it's clear that I missed at least one portion of that discussion in my
cursory search. I have read many of the documents in the past and should
have some familiarity with them that the average reader may not, so I
think this is indicative of a problem with our document organization, and
in how we decide what is relevant enough to be in the primary document vs
being pigeonholed in a separate one.

Sriram is always quite responsive to feedback, so I'm sure he'll address
some of the discussion in his draft. But given that at least this WG
draft, and possibly others are referencing Sriram's draft in lieu of
explaining things like this directly, is there any reason why we shouldn't
just adopt Sriram's draft? It seems to be representing previous consensus
within the WG on a significant number of major protocol design elements,
so the fact that it isn't a consensus document seems odd.

Wes


________________________________

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.