Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> 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
     - the union of what everybody thinks they could want

randy