> On 15 Jun 2016, at 22:35 , Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could we get some feedback that this document is ready for publication?
Hi, My 0.02 of your favourite currency denomination: Nits: Line 94: There’s a typo: “twp” instead of “two” Line 202: Grammatical error: “it’s” instead of “its” Line 317: Typo: “see see” instead of “see” Content: The middle paragraph of section 6. feels a bit foggy to me: > BGPsec protocol capability negotiation provides for a speaker signing > the data it sends without being able to accept signed data. Thus a > smallish edge router may hold only its own signing key(s), sign it's > announcements, but not receive signed announcements and therefore not > need to deal with the majority of the RPKI. Thus such routers CPU, > RAM, and crypto needs are trivial and additional hardware should not > be needed. Here’s what my take of the situation described would be: “Operators might be utilising hardware with limited resources. In such cases, BGPsec protocol capability negotiation allows for a resource constrained edge router to just hold its own signing key(s) and sign its announcements, but not receive signed announcements. Therefore, the router would not have to deal with the majority of the RPKI, potentially saving the need for additional hardware." What is “smallish" is more relative than, say, “resource constrained”. Perhaps an operator uses a large edge router that is overloaded or just wants to keep their processing overhead low. Kind regards, Aris Lambrianidis
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
