Subject: [RPSEC] comments on the path considerations I-D

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:51:51 -0400

I read the latest version of this document, as per Tony's request to 
the list.  While this version is substantially improved over the 
version I recall being discussed last year on this list, there are 
still a number of problems with the exposition, For example:
	- there is no clear articulation of the context in which the 
examples are to be interpreted and the posed questions to be answered
	- there is extensive use of undefined terms like "prove" and "valid"
	- some example topologies are so simple that they seem to 
undermine the arguments being made, e.g., if an AS has only one path 
to the rest of the Internet, then it can't make useful routing 
choices irrespective of the accuracy of the advertisements presented 
to it
	- I don't think the IESG recommends relying on routing as a 
means of controlling access to hosts on a net, yet one of the 
examples uses this as the basis of its analysis.

I have attached a detailed set of comments, in the form of a PDF 
image of MS Word comments. I stripped the boilerplate from the front 
and rear of the I-D to reduce the size of the file.

Steve

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec