>> hence the "per se," meaining in and of itself. some cases of pouring >> cement into a router (see london tube) are security issues, some are >> not. >> >>how would you make that more clear? > > I think Warren’s suggestion of simply eliminating the assertion about > whether it’s a security issue, per se or otherwise, and just saying > that it’s out of scope is enough for the intro.
i disagree. would be interested in hearing other opinions. >> they are announcements of P by A to B which are not agreed by all >> parties concerned (including A, B, neighbors of A and B, the >> originator of P, ...). the problem lies in detecting them, >> especially from a distance. > So I think that goes back to my suggestion that since you already > discuss intent in 3.22, that might be a place to add something about > leaks, either as a part of that req or a follow-on, because that’s > really what you’re saying here - we understand theoretically what they > are, but not how to detect them such that we could do anything to > prevent the undesired ones. leave that to grow/idr. this is routing security. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
