On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:56 PM Sean Turner wrote:
> Apologies for just finding this now …
>
> I seem to remember a WG discussion about whether this draft should be BCP
> or ST. We discussed BCP addressing both what the IETF wanted to be the
> best practice as well as what is the actual
Apologies for just finding this now …
I seem to remember a WG discussion about whether this draft should be BCP or
ST. We discussed BCP addressing both what the IETF wanted to be the best
practice as well as what is the actual current practice. Since BGPsec was/is
new it was/is hard to say
BCP seems like a fine answer here, I'm not remembering why we would have
swapped to ST from BCP.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM Warren Kumari wrote:
> [ + Sandy, Alvaro ]
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner wrote:
>
>> that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an
[ + Sandy, Alvaro ]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner wrote:
> that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability
> issue
>
> to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document)
>
> but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time
