On 5 January 2015 at 21:33, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> and the new lsas could not be used in path shortening attacks, >>>>> right? >>>> >>>> this document only defines the format of the LSA’s it does not talk >>>> about processing by the routing engines. >>> >>> so the secdir sees no need to warn about it. got it. </sarcasm> >> >> If secdir is going to warn about it through this process, then surely >> the right place to do that is in the comments on the document that >> does talk about processing by the routing engines? > > a naïve person might think that all documents in a series that have > security implications would be flagged in the security considerations > section. Seriously? What about the implications of other sections? Should they also be flagged? Or would a naive person perhaps think that to understand a series, you should read all of it?