[178918] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Maslak)
Fri Mar 13 15:56:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1CC6CC8F-1D82-430F-85BE-CE883249E979@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:56:12 -0600
From: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You'll get more comments about the numbering scheme than any actual BCOP...
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes <yardiel@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Hello NANOGers,
>
> The NANOG BCOP committee is currently considering strategies on how to
> best create a numbering scheme for the BCOP appeals. As we all know, most
> public technical references (IETF, etc) have numbers to clarify references.
> The goal is for NANOG BCOPs to follow some sort of same style.
>
> The BCOP committee is looking for feedback and comments on this topic.
>
> Currently, the below numbering scheme is being considered:
>
> A proposed numbering scheme can be based on how the appeals appeals in the
> BCOP topics are presented as shown below:
>
> http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals
>
> In the above page, the idea is to introduce a 100-th range for each
> category and as the BCOPs. This way a 100th number range generally
> identifies each of the categories we currently have. An example is:
>
> BCP Range Area of Practice
> 100 - 199 EBGPs
> 200 - 299 IGPs
> 300 - 399 Ethernet
> 400 - 499 Class of Service
> 500 - 599 Network Information Processing
> 600 - 699 Security
> 700 - 799 MPLS
> 800 - 899 Generalized
>
> An arguable objection could be that the range is limited...but a
> counter-argument is that considering more than 100 BCOPs would be either a
> great success or just a sign of failure for the NANOG community ...
>
> Comments or Thoughts ?
>
>
> Yardiel Fuentes
>
>
>
>
>
>
