IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A proposed change to BGP-4 MIB bgpPeerTable INDEX clause

Robert Snyder <snyder@cisco.com> Thu, 19 January 1995 20:31 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08482; 19 Jan 95 15:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08477; 19 Jan 95 15:31 EST
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13826; 19 Jan 95 15:31 EST
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA26441 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for iwg-out@ans.net); Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:13:10 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:13:10 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:13:10 -0500
Message-Id: <199501192013.MAA27767@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: "John Y. Chu" <jychu@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Robert Snyder <snyder@cisco.com>, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: A proposed change to BGP-4 MIB bgpPeerTable INDEX clause
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jan 95 14:46:16 EST." <9501191946.AA32844@triton.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 12:13:03 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Snyder <snyder@cisco.com>

This goes to thrust to payload argument.

I wanted the group to understand the real cost of the proposal.
Sometimes knowing the cost impacts whether a proposal succeeds.

But I'll sit down and shut up now.  ;-)

Robert

> 	Robert,
> 	Let's discuss the merit of this change first.
> 
> 	Once a consensus is reached, if needed, we will with the
> 	procedures then.
> 
> 	John

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email