BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
joel jaeggli
joelja at bogus.com
Thu Mar 12 19:06:55 UTC 2015
On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes 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:
identifier/locator overload.
giving intergers intrinsic meaning is generally a mistake imho.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20150312/5bed3302/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list