Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 4 Jan 2017, at 6:49, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 1/3/17, 9:00 PM, "Randy Bush" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> | | -12.2: [I-D.ietf.sider.bgpsec.overview] is mentioned in section 2 
> as
>
> | | needed to understand this document. That suggests it should be a
>
> | | normative reference.
>
> |
>
> | ennie meenie.  i think some other reviewer had me push refs around.  
> i
>
> | don't have a dog in this fight.  my personal opinion would be that
>
> | overview is informative and the protocol spec itself is normative.
>
>
>
> I agree.  In fact, it was me who asked to move 
> I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview to Informative as the reference to the 
> spec (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol) is the Normative one.
>
>
>
> In this case, we don’t want to make I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview a 
> Normative reference because it is an Informational document and would 
> result in a downref (resulting in more process, and that document is 
> not ready yet).
>
>

The issue I saw is that section 2 says readers are expected to 
understand bgpsec, and cites the overview for that purpose. Perhaps it 
should cite the protocol doc for the "expected to understand" part, and 
them mention separately that the overview provides, well, an overview?

Ben.