Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy (5/20 to 6/3/2017).

From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 20:40:30 +0000

>> The real issue here is the simple matter of AS-graph definition.  A
>> stub network is always clear.  Traditional papers for valley free
>> routing tend to focus on the remaining up/down/lateral relationships.
>> I believe these are the properties we're looking for, and that
>> stub/transit is probably not a sufficient relationship.
>
>Shouldn't the draft perhaps focus on what _is_ clear?
>

Here we have the benefit of having an RFC on route leaks definition/classification.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7908 

Sriram