BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

Sat Mar 14 00:54:26 UTC 2015

It does, but for BCOP, I do think it would be best if the new document completely obsoleted the previous document and still relevant content was copied into the new document rather than leaving merge as an exercise.

Owen

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 17:06 , Phil Bedard <bedard.phil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The RFC index is updated when a new RFC updates or obsoletes one or more existing RFCs.  The old entry has pointers to the new RFCs and vice-versa.  Now which parts are  updated is usually left as an exercise but it's usually not too hard to figure out.  There is also an errata system in place.  I think the system works fairly well.  
> 
> Phil
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Lee Howard" <Lee at asgard.org>
> Sent: ‎3/‎13/‎2015 3:51 PM
> To: "Mel Beckman" <mel at beckman.org>; "Rick Casarez" <rick.casarez at gmail.com>
> Cc: "bcop-support at nanog.org" <bcop-support at nanog.org>; "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
> 
> I think the RFC numbering system is a terrible scheme.  As Wes described,
> you have a document purporting to describe something, with no indicator
> that parts of it have been rendered obsolete by parts of other documents.
> I pity implementors who have to figure it all out.
> 
> I also agree with Joel, that assigning meaning to index numbers is a bad
> idea. It leads to crossed indexes and unclear references.
> 
> For the documents to be useful, one should be able to read a single
> document on a topic. When that topic is too big for a single document,
> split the document. When something in one document supersedes something in
> another, confirm consensus and update the canonical document.
> 
> If that's too dynamic for people, then maintain the index, and when part
> of a document is obsoleted, the entire updated document should be
> republished with a new number, and the old one marked "obsoleted by XXXX."
> 
> Under no circumstances would I support a limited number space.
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 3/13/15 2:26 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
> 
>> The index scheme has worked very well with RFCs, and has the added
>> advantage of their index numbers becoming handy memes. I strongly urge
>> Nanog to take advantage of the RFC system's success. There is no shortage
>> of monotonically ascending integers :)
>> 
>> -mel beckman
>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 11:19 AM, "Rick Casarez" <rick.casarez at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I like the idea of an index better than the proposed numbering scheme.
>>> 
>>> -------------------
>>> Cheers, Rick
>>> 
>>> Experiences not things.
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 Joel¹s 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 ³obsoleted by XXXXX² and it¹s document status
>>>> should reflect ³Obsoletes XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX² for all previous
>>>> revisions.
>>>> The index should probably reflect only BCOPs which have not been
>>>> obsoleted.
>>>> 
>>>> Just my $0.02.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 