Hello Tom, > I think that it is > "This document > obsoletes RFC7454, focusing on the overall goals, and providing a > less implementation centric set of best practices." > that leads me up the garden path. > > I think that it would be more accurate to say what your e-mail said, > that the aim now is to have 'a very brief policy stub that ideally, > can be timeless.' > > For me this is a substantial change in direction, which I was not > expecting, hence my comment. I think that such a statement should > appear in the second paragraph of the Abstract. Any later and I > think that readers, as I was, risk being led up the garden path.
Thanks. I reworded the text as follows: Previously, security considerations for BGP have been described in RFC7454 / BCP194. Since the publication of RFC7454, changes in operational practice have taken place, which are partially conflicting with the advice given in RFC7454. This document obsoletes RFC7454, and provides less implementation-specific best practices, with the goal of being less prone to becoming outdated or conflicting with changed operational practices. Does that make it more clear? If not, could you suggest a re-wording? > Going further, while RFC7454 should be rendered 'obsolete', for me, > this is not a document that does such a job. Renders it Historic > perhaps, but does not obsolete it in the sense in which I normally > see that used for a document. Yes, that is, I think, a bit muddy. Input from the chairs and the AD on this would be appreciated. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
