Considerations in Validating the Path in BGP
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-white-pathconsiderations-10.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Considerations in Validating the Path in BGP' <draft-white-pathconsiderations-10.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11359&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Alex Zinin. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-pathconsiderations-10.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document reprents author's view on considerations related to BGP route path validation. Working Group Summary This document is an idvididual submission via RFC Editor. It has been referred to the RPSEC WG for a review. The WG has no objection to this document being published by the RFC Editor. Protocol Quality Not applicable. IESG Note: After consultation with the RPSEC WG, the IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG RPSEC, but this does not prevent publishing. The IESG also recommends that a standard IESG note described in RFC 3932, section 4, case 2, is inserted in the document before publication.