David,
Steve,
I think the modified introduction text suffices to connect the PATHSEC
and BGPsec terms, but I don't think that referring to the SIDR WG
charter for the PATHSEC goals is reasonable -- an RFC is an archive
document, whereas a WG charter is not.
The revised intro text now
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06
David,
Steve,
I think the modified introduction text suffices to connect the PATHSEC and
BGPsec terms, but I don't think that referring to the SIDR WG charter for the
PATHSEC goals is reasonable - an RFC is an archive document
David,
Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's
appropriate to
use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I
propose this modified text for the introduction:
*This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is
intended to
[mailto:k...@bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:08 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: a...@cs.unc.edu; General Area Review Team (gen-...@ietf.org);
stbry...@cisco.com; ietf@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06
David,
Since this doc logically precedes
don't have a problem.
Thanks,
--David
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:k...@bbn.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:09 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: a...@cs.unc.edu; General Area Review Team (gen-...@ietf.org);
stbry...@cisco.com; ietf@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
