Re: [Idr] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-13.txt]

At 01:58 AM 10/02/2007, Erik Romijn wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 07:28:02PM -0500, John Leslie wrote:
> > Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please note these changes to the attribute names (the type codes are
> > > unchanged):
> > >
> > >     NEW_AS_PATH             --->   AS4_PATH
> > >     NEW_AGGREGATOR   --->   AS4_AGGREGATOR
>
>Perhaps a stupid question, but why not go for "AS4 speaker" and "AS2
>speaker" too instread of "NEW/OLD speaker"?

And that would change the code to support for these larger AS numbers 
in a BGP implementation in what way?

At some point its time to stop polishing documents in all kinds of 
wonderful and inventive ways and make the pragmatic judgement that 
its good enough to support running inter-operable code. I suspect 
that this particular draft got to that state of adequacy at least 4 
revs ago, and probably more. Lets face it, nothing in the 12 - 13 rev 
changes the code (and yes, I've implemented this spec, so I speak 
with some experience here). So why are we doing this document polishing?

(no, please don't tell me - sadly, I already know the answer!)

regards,

    Geoff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr