Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document

From: "john smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39 +0000

Howard,

Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental".

Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this?

-thanks

>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
>To: idr <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document
>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:05 -0400
>
>At 12:47 PM -0700 7/22/04, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>I must admit that I fully agree with Enke.
>>
>>It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this term 
>>means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as an 
>>extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message.
>>
>>The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should be 
>>combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what attribute may 
>>be needed tomorrow.
>>
>>Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for ORF 
>>message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author list :). 
>>To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH ORF, ext 
>>community ORF etc ...
>
>If these were all meant to be Experimental, that would be one thing. The 
>idea that so many types are evolving that they cannot go into one readable 
>document cries for an application of Occam's Razor.
>
>It's not that any of these are radically new BGP capabilities. Most exist 
>in standards, and most are implemented in non-ORF BGP. Now, I always tell 
>of the time that I was giving a seminar at NASA, took a break, and listened 
>to the instructor in the next room, who was discussing the Shuttle 
>propulsion system.  I could have sworn I heard him say "Hey, come on. This 
>is rocket science, not BGP."
>
>Is it rocket science to stop and ask "what are the operational benefits of 
>each of these additional types", and record some of that discussion?  
>Alternatively, the question could be posed "of all functions that are used, 
>either vendor-specific or standards-based, in eBGP route selection, which 
>should NOT be available in an ORF method, and why or why not?"
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:04 -0400

>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this?

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.     Are you referring to 
the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else?