Sounds good - I look forward to seeing the revised draft.
Thanks,
--David
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:kent(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:04 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: achi(_at_)cs(_dot_)unc(_dot_)edu; General Area Review Team
(gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org); stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; sidr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06
David,
Steve,
I think the modified introduction text suffices to connect the PATHSEC and
BGPsec terms, but I don't think that referring to the SIDR WG charter for the
PATHSEC goals is reasonable - an RFC is an archive document, whereas a WG
charter is not.
The revised intro text now paraphrases the text from the SIDR charter that
describes the path security goals.
Steve