Not sure why you send this to authors/editors.
The document is in IETF Last Call.
So comments need to to got to IETF or IESG list.
Your comments seem to be comments that get responded
to a WG or IETF Last Call. Those comments need to
go to WG and/or IESG or IETF list.
On 12/4/12 5:15 PM, heasley wrote:
rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference doesnt indicate which is more preferred, 0 or
255, but should imo.
Since it is an Unsigned 32, I think that this text:
A lower value means more preferred. If two
entries have the same preference, then the
order is arbitrary.
Which is present in the DESCRIPTION clause clearly explains
that 0 is more preferred than 255.
shouldnt rpkiRtrCacheServerV4ActiveRecords et al be in an afi/safi table?
in theory, other afis may be supported.
not sure I can properly answer this one.
possibly you'd like to see them there too?
But I don't think this is a fatal flaw is it?
Bert
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
