Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Steve,

 Couple of things.

 1. Security Considerations section missing :)

 2. I'm thinking--we're going to apply the variance procedure to the
    BGP spec when it's before the IESG, not to TCP-MD5, though the
    title and some parts of the abstract and Intro read as if it
    was about moving TCP-MD5 to DS... Maybe change the title to
    something like this--


    Standards Maturity Variance Regarding BGP-4 specification and
            the TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385)

    --and also explain that normally one would want to push 2385 to
    DS, but here's why it is not a good idea...

    If we agree on this, I'd spend more time later to day to see how
    the wording would need to be changed.

 Regards,

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/