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.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list