Hi Randy, It strikes me that this is the first time you have read this draft despite the several calls to the WG to do so. That's not bad exactly... just unexpected.
On 8/09/11 4:42 PM, "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> wrote: > i do not think this document is at all ready for publication. someone > with time and energy to clean up the wording needs to spend a half day > with the poor thing. I'm less interested in your abrupt critique and certainly much more interested in constructive reviews of which you started below and then gave up.. > > --- > > 1.2 i believe that redefining AS and ASN are ill-advised. just refer > elsewhere. we readlly do not want to go there. e.g. there are a lot of > ASs which are not under a single administrative control. > > if you insist on defining it, i would probably s/route/as-path/ > > Aggregate Route makes an assumption that 'more general' and 'specific' > are well definined. maybe try something like shorter and longer > netmask, or greater or smaller prefix mask length. > > 'Covering Aggregate' uses 'cover' in its definition, which makes it > pretty useless. > > 'Multi-homed prefix' is 'originated via'. is it transited via/through > or originated by/from? > > ... > > 3.1. Single Announcement > > An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix > 192.168.2.0/24. It wishes to announce the /24 prefix from ASN 64496 > such that relying parties interpret the route as intended. > > look at rfc 5737 IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation >From time to time authors choose to use non rfc5737 address blocks as the examples can't often be adequately described or remain uniform with the documentation prefixes. > > i could go on and on. Please do.. send to me off list if you choose. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
