Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > I read this note twice, and then went and reread the draft.
> As far as I can tell, the "amends" tag is trying to do something that the
> updates tag does not do today. There is a way to say that efforts to
> implement X MUST implement Y. That is not by "Updates". It is by
> "Obsoletes." I grant that writing the full draft Y to obsolete X is a
> pain.
I think that a good counter-example is much of the DC-based Traffic
Extensions to BGP. (I'm not expert in that area, so I won't pick an RFC)
I think that they mostly extend BGP with new attributes, but I suspect that
there are some places where it must Amend BGP to change a core assumption.
But, IDR use of BGP should NOT be changed.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
