David, Di, Tim: These are minor comments in alignment with Alvaro’s.
Alvaro wrote: >M4. References: >M4.1. s/I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview/rfc8205 ...and should be Normative. >M4.3. [minor] Please update the references according to the Nits [1]. >[1] >https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fidnits%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04.txt&data=02%7C01%7Ckotikalapudi.sriram%40nist.gov%7Cc59432d1b20b4ceb46a508d567451e8e%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636528468933957141&sdata=5QbjZdDuSy9CgDHN4gKAPsJ5EpRwJbFIVpn6Lh7d7D0%3D&reserved=0> With regard to updating the references, I noticed that the draft references [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] in two places where it should reference BGPsec Protocol Specification [RFC 8205]. For example, on page 3: (Validation of the origin of a route is described in [RFC6483], and validation of the path of a route is described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview].) For “validation of the path of a route” the pointer should be Section 5 of RFC 8205. AFAIK, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] is expired and there are no plans to publish it. I would also suggest that both RFCs 6483 and 6811 can be referenced when talking about “Validation of the origin of a route.” RFC 6811 is Standards Track while 6483 is Informational. Thanks. Sriram
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
