Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 23:43 Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I agree with Roberts’ point. Prior to crafting or selecting a draft as
> > the basis for a proposal the design team should clearly articulate the
> > scope, use cases and requirements that need to be addressed. IMO
> > stating that in an informational RFC is a good way to ensure that all
> > stakeholders are in agreement as to what the eventual
> > specification/draft addresses, and as important does not address.
>
> while i am tempted to agree with you, i see it from a different vector.
>
> imiho, if we agreed to constrain solutions to the absolute minimal
> mechanism, we might be able to cover a significant subset of clos, ibgp,
> inter-provider, and ixp.
>
> if we do not constrain to the minimial mechanism, we will make a complex
> and disgusting mess of boiling the ocean on {pick any one of the above}.
>
> i think it was tony hoare who said something such as
>
>    there are two kinds of standards,
>      - the intersection of what everybody *must* have


I would be interested to help achieve exactly the above.

Hopefully we can manage that in a way that doesn’t harm internet routing
from a security perspective. :-)

Kind regards,

Job

>