Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-sets-04

From: "Ruediger Volk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 20:36:56 +0200

I read this draft and support it's publication.

  Ruediger

---

From: Keyur Patel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:02:28 -0700

+1.

Regards,
-Keyur

On 5/16/11 11:36 AM, "Ruediger Volk" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Pradosh Mohapatra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:05:06 -0700

+1

Few editorial nits:

a) Wouldn't hurt to mention that the applicability extends to AS4_PATH &
     refer to RFC4893.
b)
section 3:
   It is worth noting that new technologies (such as those that take
   advantage of the "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS
   Identifiers" ([RFC3779]) may not support routes with AS_SETs /
   AS_CONFED_SETs in them, and MAY treat as infeasible routes containing
   them.  Future BGP implementations may also do the same.

Is it just me that finds the above para a bit hard to read? :-) Suggestion for a 
minor tweak:

   It is worth noting that new technologies (such as those that take
   advantage of the "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS
   Identifiers" ([RFC3779]) may not support routes with AS_SETs /
   AS_CONFED_SETs in them. They MAY treat such routes as infeasible.
   Future BGP implementations may also do the same.

- Pradosh