Thanks Sandy. Yes, I mean "it", not "they".
Thanks for catching that.
Joel
On 3/1/2011 4:59 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Randy, would you be willing to be wording like this, with your
corrections, into section 1 of the document?
Thank you,
Joel
On 2/26/2011 6:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
o To prevent any advertiser from sending an advertisement that would
cause other properly behaving parties to send traffic iin a way that
they are not "entitled" to cause
Clarification here. "they" are not entitled to cause -- do you mean the
"other properly behaving parties"? If you mean "any advertiser" the text
should read "it is not entitled to cause" not "they".
Not just a nit -- the difference changes the meaning.
--Sandy
close, but i am not entirely comfortable with this
o we can not hope to prevent the advertisement, only detect it is
bogus.
o it is the bgp receiver's policy decision on where to send traffic.
a security researcher may specifically want to send traffic toward
a bogus announcement.
o i.e. 'cause' is too strong a word, perhaps 'lure'
but you have the essential point
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
