Hi Job, Please let us know if there is anything needed to help progress this draft.
Thanks, mike From: GROW <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael McBride Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 11:20 PM To: David Farmer <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending-09.txt Really appreciate the comments David, very helpful. I incorporated all of your additional suggestions (added sentence to security section, created informational references section, moved links to informational section). Back to you Job. Thank you. mike From: David Farmer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 7:21 AM To: Michael McBride <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Job Snijders <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending-09.txt Also, the links to the articles "Geoff Huston's Path Prepending in BGP" and "Excessive AS Path Prepending" should be informational references instead of embedded links. Thanks On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 9:13 AM David Farmer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Speaking of informational references, all the references are normative. That doesn't seem correct. The references to RFC 5398, RFC 5738, and RFC 8195 seem to be informational references, in my opinion. Thanks On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 9:03 AM David Farmer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Job Snijders <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:11:12PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > If you keep it as updating RFC 7454, I believe you need to say it does > so in the abstract. Also, somewhere in the document, probably in the > introduction, you need to explain how it updates RFC 7454, that is how > this document relates to RFC 7454. Thanks David, that's how I understand the process too. If the contents of draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending actually update 7454 (which currently doesn't seem the case), the working group has to think about how that aligns with the 'big update' of 7454 happening in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd/ Job, thanks for the pointer to the update of 7454. Given that it already includes references to this document, that will ensure readers of it know about this document. Which is the purpose of including the Updates metadata header. I guess my final thought on the subject is whether there should be an informational reference to RFC 7454, maybe in the security considerations section. Here is a suggestion: Add a new final paragraph to the security considerations section; For a more comprehensive discussion of BGP Operations and Security, see [RFC7454]. Do with it what you will. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected]<mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected]<mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected]<mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
