Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05

Dear wg and wg chairs (those without and those with hats),

My comments on the requirements draft have never been addressed. This thread highlights a dependency that exists between the requirements of this protocol and the design of this protocol.  I do not think that (as engineers) should embrace the backward nature of this situation.

I object to this draft until we can mature the drafts it depends on.

Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 08:32 PM
To: Sandra Murphy <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
Cc: sidr wg <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05

> The newest protocol draft came out on 7 Sep and I asked the working
> group to "look at this draft right away" because it would be discussed
> at the interim meeting.  After eight days with no comments, a wglc
> seemed a good idea.  Sad that our lives need a wglc to produce
> participation, but it is what it is.

i note that you got one actual reivew, which is good.  the only other
stuff i have seen is people telling the chairs what the process should
be, embarrassing.  i promise a detailed re-read in the next days.

randy

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr