<individual contributor, RFC4271 co-author> Seems reasonable to me.
Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: sidr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Turner Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 10:49 AM To: Alvaro Retana (aretana) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Matthew Lepinski; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [sidr] BGPsec without Extended Messages (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol) > On Apr 4, 2017, at 13:18, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> wrote: > > To me, the main purpose of changing the BGPsec spec is to depend on whatever BGP does, and not on a future extension that may or may not be in the form it is today. However, if we keep the reference to the known standard (rfc4271), then we should not have to update this document because we would just inherit whatever BGP does. This sound reasonable to me. spt _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
