Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory

["Gill, James E (gill)" <james.gill at verizonbusiness.com>]

Hello folks,

I support adopting this as a WG item.

However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think
there are fundamental elements of this which are bad.  Notably, I don't
think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good
move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol.

I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention,
and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable
solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an
Internetwork.

--gill

-----Original Message-----
From: idr-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ron Bonica
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: idr at ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory

Folks,

Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's
general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated
strong support for the draft.

In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to
consider adopting this draft as a WG item.

                                    Ron Bonica

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr