Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019

Nick Hilliard <> Sun, 17 March 2019 11:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA36127978; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8VeBl4vBLQc; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155BE1275E9; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2HBFiA9088760 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:15:44 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Chris Morrow <>
References: <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:15:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:15:51 -0000

Chris Morrow wrote on 17/03/2019 08:42:
> Please have a read through this document, comment/complain/etc as
> appropriate. The decision on forward progress or necessary edits ends
> Mar 07, 2019.

Mar 7?  That doesn't leave much time.

Overall this looks like a useful summary for RP implementers, but care 
will need to be taken in future to ensure that the doc is kept current.

Is the draft missing a reference to rfc 8416?

The document needs a multiple-pass edit for both style and grammar 
before it can be handed off to the RFC Editor.  I had a look at this 
earlier today, but there's too much to handle in an email - it needs 
someone to sit down with the xml source and spend a couple of hours 
hacking at it.