Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

["Russ White" <[e-mail]>]

> snmp, netconf, yang, ...  heck even cops played in the space
> 
> when your so-bgp, 15 years in the non-making, is mature as a document set,
> with two or more implementations, i'll support it for standards track, no
> problem.  i am not desperate enough to sabatoge the work of others to
> move my work forward.

Wow -- care to prove that accusation? Or have we gotten to the point in the
IETF where personal accusations are a normal, everyday, substitute for
actual discussion? This sort of personal abuse is what turns people away
from the IETF, and reduces our value as a community. This is just wrong,
Randy, and you know it is.

My point is simple -- the "no-one will use it" argument washes either way,
so there needs to be some other grounds for deciding -- it's not a useful
argument in either direction, honestly. Which throws us back to what
"standards track" actually means. On that score, I'm not certain what the
terms mean, so I asked for clarification on what the wording actually means.

:-)

Russ