Subject: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 06:47:43 -0700

Folks,

Those who were in favor of accepting draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt
as an IDR WG document need to say whether they are in favor of
accepting draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG
document.

Those who were against accepting draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt
as an IDR WG document need to say whether they are still against
accepting draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document,
or whether draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt addressed their
objections, and they are now in favor of accepting 
draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document.

And finally, comments from the folks who did not express their
opinion on draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt would be
greatly appreciated.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Sun, 02 May 2004 08:50:26 -0700
From:    Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document

Folks,

We didn't get sufficient consensus to accept 
draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt as an IDR WG document. 

The authors of draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt produced
a new version, draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt, and would
like the IDR WG to accept this *new* version as an IDR WG document.

Please send comments to the list. The deadline for comments is 
May 17, 2004.

Yakov. 

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

------- End of Forwarded Message

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

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:37:27 -0400

>accepting draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document,

Not sure if it even needs to be said, but I am still against it.  My 
reasons should be evident from on-list discussion of the last week or 
so -- in short, I'm OK with the idea of signalled prefix limits but 
not happy with the specific mechanisms chosen.

Regards,

--John

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:37:27 -0400

Regards,

--John