BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
ttauber at 1-4-5.net
Thu Mar 12 19:23:32 UTC 2015
Totally. Also, then what if something is in the intersection of multiple
Complexity that's not needed.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2015 8:08 PM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> > On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:
> > > 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.
> I agree with Joel
More information about the NANOG