Changed the subject title to refer to the document WGLC. Please see comments inline. Thanks.
Sriram > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:48 PM > > > I also request that it be an Informational RFC (rather than a > > standards track RFC) just as draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation already > > is. > > like hell. it specifies what running code MUST do in routers. Mapping the updates to Valid, Invalid, etc. based on ROA objects is an intermediate step to a final step of making a decision about path selection. Both steps are internal to the router. If an ISP has leeway in the final step, then why should anything prevent it from having some leeway in the first step as well (primarily during partial deployment)? I am wondering what is lost if this is an Informational RFC? > > randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
