I support the publication of this document as an RFC.
I have read the revised -02 version carefully.
The description of the methodology is clear, and no inconsistencies found
with reference to the BGPsec protocol draft [draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol].
I thank the authors for incorporating most of my earlier comments/suggestions.
Some minor nits/editorial comments follow:
1. Figures 3 and 4 from the companion I-D draft-ietf-idr-as-migration are
referenced
several times in this document. It would be easier for the readers if those two
figures
are reproduced in this document when they are first referenced.
Readers can then avoid having to go back and forth between the two documents.
2. The meaning of this sentence on p.4 is lost on me.
"Since they
are using methods to migrate that do not require coordination with
customers, they do not have a great deal of control over the length
of the transition period as they might with something completely
under their administrative control (e.g. a key roll)."
For me, "do not require coordination with customers" and
"completely under their administrative control" are on the same
side of the equation.
May be this paraphrasing will help:
"Since they
are using interim methods to migrate that seek to postpone
requiring coordination with
customers, they do not have a great deal of control over the length
of the transition period as they might with something completely
under their administrative control (e.g. a key roll)."
3. Sentence on p.5 reads:
"Assuming that this mismatch will be allowed by vendor implementations
and using it as a means to solve this migration case is likely to be
problematic."
Please consider changing it to (for grammatical accuracy):
"Assuming that this mismatch will be allowed by vendor implementations,
using it as a means to solve this migration case is likely to be
problematic."
Thanks.
Sriram
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
