BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Thu Mar 12 23:48:18 UTC 2015

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:01 , Yardiel D. Fuentes <yardiel at 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 ?

The problem with any such numbering scheme is how you handle the situation when you exhaust the avaialble number space. What happens with the 101st EBGP BCOP, for example?

I also agree with Joel’s comment about identifier/locator overload. Have we learned nothing from the issues created by doing this in IPv4 and IPv6?

Instead, how about maintaining a BCOP subject index which contains titular and numeric information for each BCOP applicable to the subjects above.

e.g.:

BCOP Subject Index:

Subjects:
	1.	EBGP
	2.	IGP
	3.	Ethernet
	4.	Class of Service
	5.	Network Information Processing
	6.	Security
	7.	MPLS
	8.	Generalized

1.	EBGP
	104		lorem ipsum
	423		ipsum lorem

Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or revised BCOP.

Note, IMHO, a revised BCOP should get a new number and the previous revision should be marked “obsoleted by XXXXX” and it’s document status should reflect “Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX” for all previous revisions. The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not been obsoleted.

Just my $0.02.

Owen