Stephen: Thank you for your review and comments. In our off-list discussion, we agreed that using "propagation" in the definition is fine. Hence, not making any change in the document in regards to this.
Sriram -----Original Message----- From: GROW [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 7:04 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [GROW] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: (with COMMENT) Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Thanks for doing this. The set of references alone seems particularly valuable. - section 2, does "propagation" in the definition mean that purely faked announcement messages (ignoring RPKI for the moment) that overlap with genuine announcements cannot be considered route-leaks? From the receiver POV, those would not be distinct. It was probably already suggested but if not, do you think would s/propagation/receipt/ or similar be a little better? _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
