|
David, Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's appropriate to use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I propose this modified text for the introduction: This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is intended to operate. (The term "PATHSEC" is employed in this document to refer to any design used to achieve the path security goal described in the SIDR WG charter. The charter focuses on mechanisms that will enable an AS to determine if the AS_path represented in a route represents the path via which the NLRI traveled. Other SIDR documents use the term "BGPsec" to refer to a specific design.) ... The phrase "calls for" seems appropriate in the cache discussion. There is no MUST in the RFCs about using a local cache. The docs encourage RPs to maintain a local cache, and 6481 states that not using one is "NOT RECOMMENDED." All of the RP software of which I am aware does so, but it is not an absolute requirement. I think we've agreed that quoted is a static assertion and thus need not be annotated to reflect more recent RFCs. Steve |