[39096] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chance Whaley)
Tue Jun 26 15:04:46 2001
From: "Chance Whaley" <chance@dreamscope.com>
To: "'Matt Levine'" <matt@deliver3.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:51:21 -0600
Message-ID: <000101c0fe71$10def2a0$65f9000a@baphomet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <000001c0fe6e$0c2bd230$6701a8c0@m00se>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Matt Levine" wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> <sigh>... If the RFC jumped off a cliff...
>
Pointless and irrelevant. Do you follow the accepted standard or not -
that is what it comes down to. Bugs are bugs and everyone has them, big
deal. However, there is a general consensus about how things are
supposed to work - interoperability is somewhat difficult in this day
and age without it. So which is it? Follow the standards - be they RFC,
STD, draft, de facto, or de jure - or roll your own and pray?
No one has stated that closing the session is bad thing, and the general
feeling is that its a good thing. So what is it that you want?
.chance
(rambling on only for himself and not representing anyone else)
