Re: [sidr] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

David,

Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's 
appropriate to
use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I 
propose this modified text for the introduction:

*This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is 
intended to operate. **(The term "PATHSEC" is employed in this document 
to refer to any design used to achieve the path security goal**described 
in the **SIDR WG charter. **The charter focuses on mechanisms**that will 
enable an AS to determine if the AS_path represented in a 
route**represents the path via which the NLRI traveled. Other SIDR 
documents use
the term "BGPsec" to refer to a specific design.) ...
*
The phrase "calls for" seems appropriate in the cache discussion. There 
is no MUST in the RFCs about using a local cache. The docs encourage RPs 
to maintain a local cache,
and 6481 states that not using one is "NOT RECOMMENDED."  All of the RP 
software of which
I am aware does so, but it is not an absolute requirement.

I think we've agreed that quoted is a static assertion and thus need not be
annotated to reflect more recent RFCs.

Steve