Subject: Re: BGP spec and IDR WG charter

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:42:41 +0100

I have a very practical problem that some of the issues coming up now
did come up nine months ago and did reach a rough consensus.  Any
chance of a draft with those in?  It would make moving forward much
easier.

Tom Petch
[email-masked]

---Original Message-----
From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 September 2002 23:42
Subject: Re: BGP spec and IDR WG charter

>Folks-
>
>Regarding the review team mentioned below--
>
>Friday, August 23, 2002, 1:11:10 AM, Bill Fenner wrote:
>...
>> [**] In further support of the goal of having a quality
specification
>> that reflects current reality, the ADs have been working on
assembling
>> a team of reviewers that consists primarily of protocol
implementors,
>> who have committed their time to examine the spec.  We will be
>> sending another message to this list explaining the details of how
>> this team will do its work.
>
>--today I have pinged about a dozen people who promised to commit
>some time to review the spec, and asked them to help with the FSM
>text review posted by Sue. Hopefully we will see more activity
>on the list in the following two weeks and later when the complete
>spec goes for the LC.
>
>For people who have not been explicitly pinged and who feel capable
of
>contributing to the protocol specification--please consider this
>message as the invitation from the ADs to review the spec and provide
>your comments. Please send your comments to the list, or (if you do
>not feel comfortable speaking up on the list for some reason), send
>them to the chairs and/or the ADs instead, we'll be able to function
>as proxy if valid issues are raised.
>
>A small request to the reviewers--when looking at the spec, please
>evaluate it from the perspective of being sufficient to implement the
>protocol if the reader is not familiar with the protocol, whether it
>really reflects what your code is doing or what you know other
>implementations do, whether one would need to reverse engineer things
>to write an implementation, etc.
>
>Cheers,
>Alex
>
>

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:59:44 -0400

Its always best to just republish them - or excerpts from the archives.

In general, unless I see (in the case of the base draft) Yakov say
"I'll add this in", I assume it didn't get in.
And even then I check to see if it did. :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:14:57 +0200

Jeff, Tom-

> Its always best to just republish them - or excerpts from the archives.

Correct. We better err on this side than on the side
of people not feeling comfortable of speaking up.

> And even then I check to see if it did. :-)

I'll send a message with my proposal on this.

Alex