Re: [Sidrops] operator inputs -- route leak solution

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > SIDR/GROW/IDR and well documented in IDR (see Section 4)
> > ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-
> detection-mitigation-06  ).
> > The solution involves AS-A setting a field (in an optional transitive
> > attribute)
>
> glad you liked the attribute approach well enough to plagarize it from
> our draft.  now you just need to change from misconfigurable statements
> of relationships to plagarize the bgp open part of our draft and your
> golden.
>
>
Randy,

With all due respect, your draft fails to acknowledge the earlier work by
me (from 2012), outside of the recent drafts of which I am a co-author.

Specifically:
draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-def (which became the basis for RFC 7908)
draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-reqts
draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns

So, perhaps it would be best to avoid claims of plagiarizing, when (a)
there is clear evidence that the source of the material predates your work,
and (b) when your work does not credit the original work by me.

Pot calling the kettle black, throwing stones in glass houses, and all that.

You might want to also read those (expired) I-Ds, to get clarity on
preserving leak prevention across "special" peering sessions
They also cover the ability to prevent leaks, without requiring the
disclosure of customer relationships -- something for which you have
expressed a strong desire.

FWIW, I will be working with my co-authors on the relationship-disclosure
detail.

Maybe we can schedule some white-board time in Chicago.

Brian

P.S.  It is "you're golden".