On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >
I'm not an english teacher :( I'm just trying to see if there's middle ground or if the already used wording is fine, given other possible wordings which may seem less clunky to others. >> 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. I was looking for the explicit: "its here because X and Y and Z asked for it." (shane and a few others, yes.) So on the one hand keeping the mention of leaks seems still to be important. >> "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. > waiting seems ok to me, can we agree to agree by ~4/23/2014 (next wednesday) ? _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
