Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps (Filtering and Rate Limiti ng Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure) to BCP

["Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net>]

Personally, I think it is a BAD IDEA to allow a router vendor to
dictate how or when a draft or RFC should be published -- that
should be up to the working group.

This entire discussion is kind of scary, to tell you the truth.

I support the publication of this document as Informational.

- ferg


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

-- Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:


On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:54 PM, George Jones wrote:
>
> I was with you up to there.   I was satisfied, and I think the  
> chairs were,
> that we had reached sufficient consensus to progress.   Do you have
> specific issues where you think we failed to achieve consensus. (other
> than the status about which I am ambivalent) ?

I'm fine with the document as is.  However, I do understand
Barry's general concern about some of these 'capabilities'
being unreasonable, that's what my comment intended to
reflect.

But by the same token, a provider could  argue that BCP 38
shouldn't be BCP because they can't do it on their routers.
That doesn't mean that it's not a good idea, or that the
community consensus no longer exists.

> Also, we very carefully avoided creating "requirements".  They are
> capability lists.

Hrmm...  I'm not sure what a "capability list" is, can you provide
a pointer to something that describes this and it's relationship to
IETF process?

-danny