>>> Bgpsec-reqs 3.4 provides a list of operational considerations to
>>> discuss. Would probably make sense to ensure that the document covers
>>> all of the listed items, perhaps even using those items as section
>>> headings for continuity's sake.
>>
>> probably more appropriate in the protocol document, or an adjunct to it
>>
> [WEG]] Not certain I understand. This is an operational considerations
> document, and those are listed as operational considerations. Why would that
> not be appropriate? How are you making the distinction between what is and is
> not appropriate?
Security Requirements for BGP Path Validation
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-01
Abstract
This document describes requirements for a future BGP security
protocol design
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
