On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Rob Austein wrote:

> I'm not going to attempt to answer point by point, because that would
> drive us both nuts.  Instead, I'm going to answer a few specific
> points, then let you see if the text changes I made are satisfactory.
>
> Overall, this required a bit more new text than I would have preferred
> at the end of Last Call, but I think you identified some missing
> background information that needed adding, and none of the new text is
> intended to change the protocol itself in any way, so I'm hoping this
> will be acceptable to all parties.

The text and your email clarified a lot. Thanks!

> I have not yet submitted the updated I-D (-10).  Will do so tomorrow
> unless I hear loud screaming, as our AD wants an updated I-D this
> week.  For the moment, you can see the updated version and a diffs at:
>
> https://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10.txt
> https://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10-from-09.diff.html

I've read the changes. Those along with the clarifications in your email
resolve all my issues. So from a SecDir review point of view, this
document is now Ready.

Thank you,

Paul