In your previous mail you wrote: > > - 3 3.7 (twice), 3.11 page 4 and 4 4.3 page 6: need -> needs > > i believe that "x need not do y" is correct, so will leave it to the > rfced if you will indulge
=> you are the native English writer (:-). Anyway the RFC Editor could fix it if needed... > > - 3 3.14 page 4: wording (I had to read the 3.14 multiple times > > to understand it) > > how about > > While the formal validity of a routing announcement should be > determined by the BGPsec protocol, local routing policy MUST > be the final arbiter of best path and other routing > decisions. => far better! Regards [email protected] PS: I apologize for the delay: I am back from a very long week-end (with the Bastille day...) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
