On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:29:06PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote: >I suspect my problems come from not realizing there has been a change of >focus. (It may be much clearer to routing people.) So I would suggest >expanding the title of Appendix A to "Transition Considerations for >Vendors of BGP Implementations".
Hi Dale, how about simply "Transition Considerations for BGP Implementers" as there are many excellent FOSS implementations in addition to implementations sold by vendors? > For an implementer, transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation > may require a software development and release process that can take > several years. > >Perhaps "a software development and release" can be omitted. Updated: For an implementer, transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation may require a process that can take several years. >> This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported nor >> exported unless specifically enabled by configuration. The solution >> reduces the consequences of these problems, and improves the default level >> of Internet routing security. > >In that case, I'd start the second sentence with "This change ..." or >perhaps "This update ..." -- nothing has previously been labeled a >"solution", so the reader has to search a bit to determine the >antecedent. Updated: This change reduces the consequences of these problems, and improves the default level of Internet routing security. We'll wait to send a new diff in case there are further comments. Kind regards, Greg -- Greg Hankins <[email protected]> Senior Product Manager IP/Optical Networks, Nokia _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
