Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt

Randy Bush <> Thu, 08 September 2011 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDA421F8B35; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukoWqoT0L5-P; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865BD21F8B08; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1R1bO5-000FPn-Pn; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:59:14 +0000
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:59:02 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Terry Manderson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Christopher Morrow <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:57:28 -0000

hi terry,

> It strikes me that this is the first time you have read this draft despite
> the several calls to the WG to do so.

this version, yes.  read a year or so ago, and it was structurally so
off my map that i did not do more than scan.

> That's not bad exactly... just unexpected.

in one sense, it's what wglc is all about.  and this is just not high on
my radar.

> I'm less interested in your abrupt critique and certainly much more
> interested in constructive reviews of which you started below and then
> gave up..

apologies, but the multiple hours needed would not come up on my
priority stack for a long while.  i would hope the authors would know
how to be more precise.

as i said privately to the chairs

    ... that docco is *really* sloppy.  i am kinda wondering why no one
    else has raised the rather amazing editorial issues.  no one
    bothered to read it?  i admit that i have not read it for a year or

    please view my comments as just that.  i do not formally object to
    the doc being passed to the iesg.  imiho, they probably deserve
    it. :)