Subject: RE: [Ieprep] IP Bridging Configuration Guidance for IEPREP Telep hony

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:49:26 -0500

At 10:09 AM 7/3/2003 -0400, Gunn, Janet wrote:
       >> It would be better to develop the guidance as an informational RFC 
       >> versus an official BCP, and then maybe later, if its application and 
       >> experience warrants, advance it as a BCP.

Probably, you should read RFC 2026 (particularly Section 4.2 )

also, quoting scott(?),
//How can we get BCP without current practices? BCP is best way we know
  how to do something rather than the best way we ARE doing something. //

so, clearly your work can be considered as BCP, if you have _not_ proposed
changes to existing protocols; also, accepted by this WG (operators support
will be a huge plus) as a best way of *how to do something*. I don't think, 
there is a clear current operational practice for giving priority to ieprep
traffic in Internet;except ensuring high availability. Hence, experience 
based drafts like ieprep packet marking policy can be classified as  BCP. 

another way to do is, to put your proposal in practice with the help of 
some ISPs and then, standardise(as ran suggests at many places.) It has 
been followed for some transport area standardizations. But, sometimes,
it will also lead to vendor inter-operability problems. 

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

---

From: Janet Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:00:23 -0400

Just to clarify, this approach is aimed at "a single domain IP-Bridging"
topology.