Hi Wes, If we follow that strategy (make sure requirements are listed in BGPSEC req. document and change status to BCP for this document), I support adoption.
r. On May 30, 2013, at 6:14 PM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) [mailto:[email protected]] > > > The document is intended as "Informational" but do have requirement language. > Is this what you intended? > [WEG] originally, it was just covering the problem statement. This last > revision added the solution, and thus required some normative language to > guide the implementation. That probably means the doc type needs to change, > but I was looking to the WG for feedback on how to proceed (whether this > should remain a standalone document as companion to the BGPSec protocol > draft, or be integrated into it, or what). Last meeting, it sounded like the > preference was to have this remain a standalone document, but I didn’t hear > any real guidance on whether it should formally update the BGPSec document or > not. > > 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? > [WEG] I have no objection to moving section 4 to sidr-bgpsec-reqs to add to > 3.15. I documented them here because as noted above, originally this was a > problem statement, and so it seemed important to ensure that any solutions > could be evaluated against their success in meeting these requirements that > are specific to AS-migration and aliasing. > > Wes > > 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 > > * Persona Not Validated - 1368524010073 <[email protected]> > * Issuer: Symantec Corporation - Unverified >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
