On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Danny McPherson <[email protected]> wrote: > Not on my last read, e.g.: > > " (These behaviors are not precluded by the specification for BGP, > and might be the result of a local policy that is not publicly disclosed. > As a result, they are not considered attacks. See Section 5 for additional > discussion.)" >
yes, not ignored. > and > > "Moreover, route leaks are outside the scope of PATHSEC, at this time, > based on the SIDR charter." right, change the charter? find a way to describe the problem (which is what's been asked for for ~1+yrs now?). The draft you reference up-thread isn't actually helpful, it doesn't show how to know that the leak is a leak and not another backup path coming to light for other reasons in the system. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
