> ie, if you dislike these words, please instead of just knocking down, > can you help construct?
see wrestling with pigs. and this is my last go on this for today. > noting netmask, maxlen, which clearly removed the 'rigorous' -what else > is wrong with the text? it does not even say that if there is a roa specifying that A may announce P, that, in the absence of a roa saying that B may also announce P, an announcement of P by B should be rejected. it should. the owner stated their intent. if they had intended B to announce, they could and should have said so. they did not run out of ink or lack the pen. in fact, it strangely says the opposite, "While the presence of a valid ROA that matches the advertisement is a strong indication that an advertisement matches the authority provided by the prefix holder to advertise the prefix into the routing system, the absence of a ROA or the invalidity of a covering ROA does not provide a conclusive indication that the advertisement has been undertaken without the address holder's permission ..." to me that is a whole lot of broken words merely in order to justify boas. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
