North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?
- From: Susan Hares
- Date: Tue Aug 23 23:51:43 2005
This is the first of many steps. And to be fair to the authors, the
process got held up due to the base draft being re-written.
So, the key discussion points are (as Yakov has indicated as well):
a) Are there any technical problems with the specification
b) Does the specification cause operational problems?
c) General concerns about the design of the additions to BGP
Implementation reports give us the opinion of those who have already
implemented the protocol. That's usually worth hearing about.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:31 AM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?
On 23-aug-2005, at 16:16, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>>> The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
>> If this is true, it's very distressing.
> The IDR draft awaits an implementation report in order to advance
> the draft to Proposed Standard. What is so distressing about this ?
A draft is work in progress. We don't even get to refer to it because
it's deleted after 6 months. As such, it's hardly less ephemeral than
You can't build implementations based on that. But I guess this is
what happens with the convoluted "standards track" mechanism that the
IETF currently uses.
One thing that bothers me very much about this is that it will make
changes that happen in IETF last call much harder. Essentially that
means that anyone who isn't in IDR doesn't get to have his or her