> I could easily replace per se with 'intrinsically' like: yes. do we need to play synonyms when, ab definito, they mean the same thing? i chose my words. as you point out, they are correct.
> Is there a reason to keep the mention of route-leaks in this document? i think it was shane who wanted them explicitly mentioned. it seems to be a fashionable term in grow this season, and i am not sure there is any benefit to pretending we don't see it. but i personally do not care. > "As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this > work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol. Issues of business > relationship conformance, while quite important to operators, are > not security issues per se, and are outside the scope of this > document. It is hoped that these issues will be better understood in > the future." i can live with that > I think this was in line with warren's suggestion, which wes agreed > with as did stephen kent. This seems ok to me as well... I'd like to > close the discussion sooner rather than later and send out a > publication request. as none of the folk you just listed were those specifically asking for the term "route leaks," if you do not mind, it seems polite to wait a few days to give them a chance to speak. i can cut a new version if the dust settles. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
