Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like:
>
> yes.  do we need to play synonyms when, ab definito, they mean the same
> thing?  i chose my words.  as you point out, they are correct.
>

I'm not an english teacher :( I'm just trying to see if there's middle
ground or if the already used wording is fine, given other possible
wordings which may seem less clunky to others.

>> Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document?
>
> i think it was shane who wanted them explicitly mentioned.  it seems to
> be a fashionable term in grow this season, and i am not sure there is
> any benefit to pretending we don't see it.  but i personally do not
> care.

I was looking for the explicit: "its here because X and Y and Z asked for it."
(shane and a few others, yes.) So on the one hand keeping the mention
of leaks seems still to be important.

>>   "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
>>    work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
>>    relationship conformance, while quite important to operators, are
>>    not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this
>>    document.  It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in
>>    the future."
>
> i can live with that
>
>> I think this was in line with warren's suggestion, which wes agreed
>> with as did stephen kent. This seems ok to me as well... I'd like to
>> close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a
>> publication request.
>
> as none of the folk you just listed were those specifically asking for
> the term "route leaks," if you do not mind, it seems polite to wait a
> few days to give them a chance to speak.  i can cut a new version if the
> dust settles.
>

waiting seems ok to me, can we agree to agree by ~4/23/2014 (next wednesday) ?