Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04

Sriram,

Thanks again for your comments.

> 在 2018年1月30日，04:36，Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> 写道：
> 
> David, Di, Tim:
> 
> These are minor comments in alignment with Alvaro’s.
> 
> Alvaro wrote:
> 
>> M4. References:
> 
>> M4.1. s/I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview/rfc8205  ...and should be Normative.
> 
>> M4.3. [minor] Please update the references according to the Nits [1].
> 
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04.txt 
> 
> With regard to updating the references, I noticed that the draft references
> [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] in two places where it should reference
> BGPsec Protocol Specification [RFC 8205].  For example, on page 3:
> 
> (Validation of the origin of a route is
>   described in [RFC6483], and validation of the path of a route is
>   described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview].)
> 
> For “validation of the path of a route” the pointer should be Section 5 of RFC 8205.

Yes.  We should make the change.

> 
> AFAIK, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] is expired and there are no plans to publish it.
> 
> I would also suggest that both RFCs 6483 and 6811 can be referenced when
> talking about “Validation of the origin of a route.”  RFC 6811 is Standards Track
> while 6483 is Informational.

Agreed.

RFC 6811 is more competent to talk about Validation of the origin of a route. 

Di

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