Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <11994362295.20030409103428@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes:
>Bert,
>
>Wednesday, April 9, 2003, 2:24:15 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> Mmmm.. the new abstract (as suggested by Alex) says:
>
>>    The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative references for
>>    a document be at the same or higher level of standardization.  RFC
>>    2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to the standard
>>    practices of the IETF.  This document explains why the IESG is
>>    considering do so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification
>>    that is being considered for publication as Draft Standard and
>>    normatively refers to RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the
>>    TCP MD5 Signature Option", which is staying at the Proposed Standard
>>    level of maturity.
>
>> I wonder about the "is considering do so".
>
>should be "is considering TO do so", btw
>
>> I think by rthe time this doc gets published, we have considered it and
>> decided. So WOuld the abstract not be better to say:
>
>I thought it would be misleading for the ID containing the request
>for variance that we are soliciting community input for through the
>IETF LC to say that we've already done so.
>
>We can, of course change the text to reflect the history during
>author-48 period.

I'll try to integrate these comments on the train to or from Washington 
tomorow or Thursday.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)