On Jun 18, 2015, at 5:15 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this means you are asking for a WGLC, yes? Not necessarily. The draft went into wglc in January. Matt discussed his planned response to the comments received at IETF92. This version includes those changes. > If so we can ship a note to the list (here) about that... > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Matthew Lepinski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification. >> >> This version includes some minor fixes as well as all of the changes >> discussed at IETF 92. (Minutes can be found here -- >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-sidr) I believe that >> all open issues with this document have been addressed. >> >> The only normative changes in the -12 version are the following: >> -- BGPsec speakers MUST support the multi-protocol extension (RFC 4760) >> -- BGPsec now signs the entire MP_REACH_NLRI attribute. (Recall that there >> was an error previously where the AFI was not protected under the signature) >> >> I believe that this document is now ready to ship to the IESG. If you >> disagree, please let me know what still needs to be addressed. Anyone who commented on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11.txt is encouraged to review this version and report if your comments have or have not been addressed. The chairs will be reviewing this version as well. --Sandy, speaking as a wg co-chair >> >> - Matt Lepinski >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >> > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
