Hi Jerome, >> Q_4_2: The last sentence says "For a more detailed recommendation, see >> RFC6192 [18].". Recommendation on what? > > Recommendation of router protection (section title) I propose we clarify that > in the text: > > "For a more detailed recommendation on how to protect the router's control > plane, see RFC6192 [18] >
Looks good. >> Section 5: >> >> Q_5_1: The name of section 5 uses "BGP sessions", but the >> section text does not say anything about BGP sessions. And, in section 5.1 >> you only >> talk about "TCP sessions used by BGP". Only in section 5.2 do you >> mention "BGP session". Perhaps you should add some general text to section 5 >> about BGP sessions, how TCP is used to transport BGP messages in BGP >> sessions etc, and then in section 5.1 only talk about protection of TCP. > > OK, I'll see how to clearly add session key word in first paragraph of 5. Thanks! This was the main editorial issue I had with the document, so hopefully you'll find a way to make it more clear :) Thanks! Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
