David,
Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's
appropriate to
use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I
propose this modified text for the introduction:
*This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is
intended to operate. **(The term "PATHSEC" is employed in this document
to refer to any design used to achieve the path security goal**described
in the **SIDR WG charter. **The charter focuses on mechanisms**that will
enable an AS to determine if the AS_path represented in a
route**represents the path via which the NLRI traveled. Other SIDR
documents use
the term "BGPsec" to refer to a specific design.) ...
*
The phrase "calls for" seems appropriate in the cache discussion. There
is no MUST in the RFCs about using a local cache. The docs encourage RPs
to maintain a local cache,
and 6481 states that not using one is "NOT RECOMMENDED." All of the RP
software of which
I am aware does so, but it is not an absolute requirement.
I think we've agreed that quoted is a static assertion and thus need not be
annotated to reflect more recent RFCs.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
