Hi George, Thanks for writing this document, I think it is very good work!
One comment before sending my support email. The document is intended as "Informational" but do have requirement language. Is this what you intended? Personally, I would rather all requirements to be moved to the requirements document so we have one unique point to read. We could publish then this document even as a "BCP" on a specific practice. Does point 3.15 of the BGPSEC requirements document seams not to cover your own requirements in Section 4. Do you think we can move the BGPSEC specific requirements to the other document? Regards, Roque On May 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> wrote: > All – I have not received any feedback regarding this draft since I posted > the revision incorporating the solution into it in February. Perhaps it’s > time to call WG adoption so that it can move forward? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-sidr-as-migration-01 > > Thanks, > > Wes George > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
