Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>  Introduction of the IdleHold does change the FSM,
>  and I thought we wanted the spec to reflect the current
>  running code as much as possible.
>  
>  I agree with Russ and Ishi---the new state does not
>  seem to be necessary, instead it could be as easy
>  as holding the session in Idle and giving clue on
>  how to make the delay exponential. I don't think
>  there's an interoperability issue if people decide
>  to keep the session in Idle using different internal
>  mechanisms.

if the introduction of idlehold makes life clearer for implementors, yet
it changes the fsm but not in incompatible ways (i.e. old would interop
with new and wire looks the same, as jeff asserts.  maybe sufficient
sushi could convince an area director not to ding the progress status of
the document.

randy