Re: On BGP and VPLS

Alex,

> 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.

Quoting from your original message (May 2):

 First of all, let me remind you the message Scott and I brought to
 the WG in Yokohama--the IESG is very concerned about the tendency of
 using routing protocols (and BGP in particular) as a universal
 transport mechanism, and a _very_ strong case would need to be made
 if the WG decided to go with such a proposal.

So, in your original message you made it quite clear that these are
the *IESG* concerns. Yet now you are saying that these are just
*your* concerns. 

Yakov.