Re: BGP autodiscovery design team

--===============8839262491648825257==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005be5740598fcd282"

--0000000000005be5740598fcd282
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 23:43 Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I agree with Roberts=E2=80=99 point. Prior to crafting or selecting a d=
raft as
> > the basis for a proposal the design team should clearly articulate the
> > scope, use cases and requirements that need to be addressed. IMO
> > stating that in an informational RFC is a good way to ensure that all
> > stakeholders are in agreement as to what the eventual
> > specification/draft addresses, and as important does not address.
>
> while i am tempted to agree with you, i see it from a different vector.
>
> imiho, if we agreed to constrain solutions to the absolute minimal
> mechanism, we might be able to cover a significant subset of clos, ibgp,
> inter-provider, and ixp.
>
> if we do not constrain to the minimial mechanism, we will make a complex
> and disgusting mess of boiling the ocean on {pick any one of the above}.
>
> i think it was tony hoare who said something such as
>
>    there are two kinds of standards,
>      - the intersection of what everybody *must* have


I would be interested to help achieve exactly the above.

Hopefully we can manage that in a way that doesn=E2=80=99t harm internet ro=
uting
from a security perspective. :-)

Kind regards,

Job

>

--0000000000005be5740598fcd282
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 23:43 Randy Bush &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:randy@ps=
g.com">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">&gt; I agree with Roberts=E2=80=99 point. =
Prior to crafting or selecting a draft as<br>
&gt; the basis for a proposal the design team should clearly articulate the=
<br>
&gt; scope, use cases and requirements that need to be addressed. IMO<br>
&gt; stating that in an informational RFC is a good way to ensure that all<=
br>
&gt; stakeholders are in agreement as to what the eventual<br>
&gt; specification/draft addresses, and as important does not address.<br>
<br>
while i am tempted to agree with you, i see it from a different vector.<br>
<br>
imiho, if we agreed to constrain solutions to the absolute minimal<br>
mechanism, we might be able to cover a significant subset of clos, ibgp,<br=
>
inter-provider, and ixp.<br>
<br>
if we do not constrain to the minimial mechanism, we will make a complex<br=
>
and disgusting mess of boiling the ocean on {pick any one of the above}.<br=
>
<br>
i think it was tony hoare who said something such as<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0there are two kinds of standards,<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- the intersection of what everybody *must* have</block=
quote><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I would be interested t=
o help achieve exactly the above.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">Hopefully we can manage that in a way that doesn=E2=80=99t harm i=
nternet routing from a security perspective. :-)</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br=
></div><div dir=3D"auto">Kind regards,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">Job</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div><=
/div>

--0000000000005be5740598fcd282--


--===============8839262491648825257==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

--===============8839262491648825257==--