On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Andrew Chi wrote:
On 1/17/2013 4:23 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-04
This revision clarifies the wording on route leaks as a residual
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Eric Osterweil
eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
snip
- I also don't understand how the text in this (a threats document) can claim
that route
leaks are beyond the scope of PATHSEC in a fait accompli manner... This is a
threats document, right? This is a
I had thought the wg's broader goal was to protect those that rely on
BGP?
good luck with that. start an insurance business.
it is to protect the protocol from being gamed.
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
