Re: Draft changes

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, Tony Li writes:
> 
> Curtis,
> 
>    1) I though it was still discretionary becasue to be mandatory it must
>    be required for both IBGP and EBGP as stated in another diff chunk.  
> 
> Please define your reference to 'it'.  LOCAL_PREF?  Yes, this is a
> liberty.  I note that there was already a discussion about reclassification
> and additional definitions.  I didn't see good consensus.  I don't like my
> solution either.
> 
>    2) I really don't like
>    your pseudocode description of route selection and I'd rather see a
>    more consise description.  
> 
> Not mine.  Copied verbatim.  I don't like using pseudo-code in a spec,
> either (it's the semanticist in me), so I added a (hopefully equivalent)
> English description too.
> 
>    I think there was consensus on other changes so I'll go through the
>    mail and resend the changes so we can discuss them again, particularly
>    ones that got positive comments.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>    > ! email: [e-mail]
> 
>    .net ?
> 
> This is correct.  juniper.com was taken.  In addition, because it was taken
> by someone who is also in the networking area (a systems integrator), it
> _appears_ that we'll be doing a name change anyway.  Stay tuned...  Film at
> 11.  ;-)
> 
> Tony


Tony,

Am I mistaken or did the draft not get posted?  I saw the diffs but
not a pointer to the new copy of the draft.

Curtis