Hi Rich, Thank you for giving it a read. Your editorial comments are incorporated in v-12 of my editor copy.
The other comments: >Section 4 has text of: >" The procedure takes (AS1, AS2, AFI) as input parameters" and >" Therefore, the above procedure with the input (AS1, AS2, AFI) may >have different outputs for different AFI values." >But it looks like in section 3 the notation given is: " (AS1, AFI, [AS2,...])" >Not sure if that's a mistake or no. The two different tuples refer to two different things (as explained in the document). (AS1, AS2, AFI) is used in the context of AS path verification to check if two consecutive unique ASes (e.g., AS1 and AS2) have an authorized customer-to-provider relationship. OTOH, (AS1, AFI, [AS2,...]) refers to an ASPA object where [AS2,..] is the set of providers authorized by the customer AS1. >In Section 8, it may be useful to reference route filters that are dynamically >generated using IRR data and how they compare to ASPA. Not sure about the value. We (authors) will give it a thought. Sriram _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
