Re: On BGP and VPLS

Monday, May 12, 2003, 7:52:48 AM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> If the IESG is so much concerned, then it is the IESG's responsibility
> to substantiate their concerns with *solid* technical arguments
> that are of practical significance, and not just say that "the IESG
> is very concerned". So far the IESG clearly failed to do so, as
> what you put in the rest of this message either lacks solid technical
> justification (see Pedro's replies to you) or practical significance,
> or both.

Clarification: in case I didn't make it clear in my message, those are
_my_ concerns, not a statement from the IESG as a body.

Regarding lack of "solid technical justification" or "practical
significance", our opinions diverge.

> And, bwt how do *you* know what BGP was designed for ? If one really
> wants to know what BGP was (and was not) designed for, then perhaps
> one should ask the folks who designed BGP.

What I will do instead is take this document to IDR, and a couple of
directorates for a review, so "folks who designed BGP", folks who work
on BGP, and folks who use BGP, have a chance to say what they think.

Alex