Hi Chris,
Please see inline.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:28 AM
To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 3:21 AM Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology
Research Dept. NW) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 6:05 PM
> To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
> Cc: grow@ietf.org; Brian Dickson
> Subject:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:57:00AM +, Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology
Research Dept. NW) wrote:
> For the case you mentioned, it’s actually an interesting example of
> forging AS-PATH out of “good” intention, which does not belong to
> misconfiguration or attack. In fact, it suggests that
Hi Jeffrey and Warren,
Thanks for the suggestions on the “type X” usage. We’ll try better expressions
in the new version.
Jeffrey,
We’ll also fix the ASN usage issue.
For the case you mentioned, it’s actually an interesting example of forging
AS-PATH out of “good” intention, which does not
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:59 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Authors,
>
> Some various comments on the draft in no particular order:
> - Consider using the document ASes from the reserved ranges; i.e. RFC 5398
> - Construct a unified table of the "results" and a short term for their
> meaning. One
