IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15

David Ball <david.ball@ensoft.co.uk> Thu, 08 November 2001 13:42 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA20485 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:42:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 436F5912D7; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:39 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0ECC4912D8; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:38 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1540A912D7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E979A5DDC9; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:37 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [198.135.0.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D41B5DD92 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:41:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ensoft-linux1.cisco.com (daviball@ensoft-linux1.cisco.com [144.254.45.134]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA24944; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:41:28 GMT
Received: by ensoft-linux1.cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:41:27 +0000
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:41:27 +0000
From: David Ball <david.ball@ensoft.co.uk>
To: Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15
Message-ID: <20011108134126.V5396@cisco.com>
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20011107162314.01d39868@mail.nexthop.com> <200111080348.fA83mD051359@merlot.juniper.net> <20011107213127.C12403@layer8.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us
In-Reply-To: <20011107213127.C12403@layer8.net>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001, Ben Black wrote:
> > 
> > I would especially encourage folks who are * BGP implementors* to comment
> > on whether they feel they really need the state machine in the spec.
> > 
> 
> I find this statement offensive and contrary to the philosophy of the IETF.
> This is an open list, and anyone with a good idea should be able to contribute
> it.  If you'd like a closed list restricted to BGP implementors, by all means
> set it up and decide behind closed doors how the protocols will evolve, but
> don't announce on an open IETF list that you can only contribute if you work
> for a vendor.

I fail to see how encouraging a certain group to comment prohibits
anyone else from doing so.


	David


-- 
David Ball
<david.ball@ensoft.co.uk>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email