Hi Randy, Thanks for the quick response. Your proposed changes sound good to me.
Regards Suresh ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush <[email protected]> To: Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Cc: Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Sent: 12/4/2013 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04.txt > Thanks for your review, Suresh. Randy et al - any comments? the comments of shuresh and <bzzt, no brain changing planes after 13 hour flight> about the poor correspondence between -impl and 6810 are quite correct and embarrassing. fix will require going back to all implementors. we will do so. >> -> It is unclear what the following footnote means since the row is >> -> concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals >> -> with a typical exchange. >> "1) NO, we always respond as described in 6.3 of [RFC6810]" the text will be changed to "we do not implement it" >> RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but >> it is not at all covered here in the support table. text will be added to say no one has implemented ipsec. probably should do the same for AO as pretty much all AO implementations are on the powerpoint platform randy _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
