On 29 Apr 2015, at 0:21, David Mandelberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Based on the two snippets above, I do think it's clear enough for > implementations to get it right. Yes, looks like it's indeed in there if you read closely. > However, you asked a good question that other people will probably ask again. > Do you think it would be helpful to make this case more explicit somewhere? I think making this more explicit in an update of RFC 6483 would be helpful. But unless I missed something, the BGPsec drafts don't even talk about the unknown state: "The validation procedure results in one of two states: 'Valid' and 'Not Valid'." I don't see any reasonable deployment scenario with only valid and invalid. I think this needs to be addressed in a BGPsec document. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
