Sounds good - I look forward to seeing the revised draft. Thanks, --David
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:k...@bbn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:04 AM To: Black, David Cc: a...@cs.unc.edu; General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); stbry...@cisco.com; i...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.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
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
