transit policy syntax

[Robert Woody Woodburn <[e-mail]>]

I think that using the attributes scheme I described earlier would
improve the extensibility of policy messages.

Tony, would this help any, or do you see a more basic problem?  I would think
that as long as attributes are independent of each other, then a route server
could use attributes that it recognized and just ignore the others.  However,
I'm not sure that works entirely either, since some of those attributes
describe specific conditions to which the policy term applies.  Unless the RS
understood the attribute, it would probably go off calculating nonsense.  But
this would be caught by setup.  At least the route server would have
something it could understand and try a computation with, rather than
discarding the entire update.

wood y