ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [GROW] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07

2017-05-22 17:28:47
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:29:06PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
I suspect my problems come from not realizing there has been a change of
focus.  (It may be much clearer to routing people.)  So I would suggest
expanding the title of Appendix A to "Transition Considerations for
Vendors of BGP Implementations".

Hi Dale, how about simply "Transition Considerations for BGP Implementers" as
there are many excellent FOSS implementations in addition to implementations
sold by vendors?

   For an implementer, transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation
   may require a software development and release process that can take
   several years.

Perhaps "a software development and release" can be omitted.

Updated: For an implementer, transitioning to a compliant BGP implementation
may require a process that can take several years.

This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported nor
exported unless specifically enabled by configuration.  The solution
reduces the consequences of these problems, and improves the default level
of Internet routing security.

In that case, I'd start the second sentence with "This change ..." or
perhaps "This update ..." -- nothing has previously been labeled a
"solution", so the reader has to search a bit to determine the
antecedent.

Updated: This change reduces the consequences of these problems, and improves
the default level of Internet routing security.

We'll wait to send a new diff in case there are further comments.

Kind regards,
Greg

--
Greg Hankins <greg(_dot_)hankins(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
Senior Product Manager
IP/Optical Networks, Nokia

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>