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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>>> 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

my paternal grandmother was.  even when i was barely writing, she would
return my letters with red ink corrections.  i thought it normal. :)

>> 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.

or it could be obe.  don't know.  did someone see harm in mentioning
route leaks?  as i said, i have no dog in this fight.

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

i will be on yet another journey, so please remind me if you would.  i
already cut your text into my emacs edit buffer.

>> while checking the docco, i found
>>
>>    3.14  While the trust level of a route should be determined by the
>>          BGPsec protocol, local routing preference and policy MUST then
>>          be applied to best path and other routing decisions.  Such
>>          mechanisms SHOULD conform with [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].
>> ...
>>    3.17  If a BGPsec design makes use of a security infrastructure, that
>>          infrastructure SHOULD enable each network operator to select
>>          the entities it will trust when authenticating data in the
>>          security infrastructure.  See, for example,
>>          [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].
>>
>> those references would seem to be obe.  dunno what to do with the first,
>> drop it?  the second might ref lta-use-cases.
> 
> losing the last sentence in the first seems ok.  and the second moving
> to use-cases seems ok to me...

anyone else have input on this one, well, these two?

randy