[83751] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Aug 23 18:25:12 2005
In-Reply-To: <20050823215545.71B903BFF68@berkshire.machshav.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:18:00 +0200
To: Steven M.Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 23-aug-2005, at 23:55, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> This is exactly why people shouldn't implement drafts except possibly
>> as a private in-house feasibility study.
> In general, you're right; however, BGP documents have a special
> status.
> Because of how crucial BGP is to the Internet's functioning, I-Ds
> won't
> progress to RFC status (at least as Proposed Standard) without two
> interoperating implementations.
Ah, that makes sense. So how does that work for work on TCP (which is
even more crucial than BGP)? You have to have interoperable
implementations before writing the draft?
(I knew the IETF had some trouble with its internal organization. I
had no idea it was this bad.)
