From 5e4fc9d424fe15035ccc9e22a6a5b102f193704a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Randy Bush Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 11:37:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] some edits caused by ties reading --- draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml b/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml index bc81f75..7e1566c 100644 --- a/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml +++ b/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ neighbors to recover the paths which might be covered by these new RPKI data. This will be perceived as rude by those neighbors as it passes a serious resource burden on to them. This document - recommends implementations keep but mark paths affected by + recommends implementations keep and mark paths affected by RPKI-based policy so Route Refresh is no longer needed. @@ -179,8 +179,8 @@ When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped, withdrawn, or merely not chosen as best path due to RPKI-based policy (ROV, ASPA, etc.), those paths MUST be saved and marked (to not be used - for best path evaluation etc.) so that later VRPs can reevaluate - them against then current policy. + for best path evaluation etc.) so that later RPKI data can + reevaluate those paths. @@ -280,7 +280,8 @@ The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, Nick - Hilliard, John Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, and Saku Ytti. + Hilliard, Ties de Kock. John Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, and Saku + Ytti.