+1
Murphy, Sandra writes: > This has become a long and tortuous rat hole, leading off into branching rat > holes. > > It all started with prospective text to the idr wg about the route leaks > problem. > > The furor started over the suggested text's stated motivation for asking. > > But there have been no objections to conferring with idr and some > expressions of agreement. > > So can we go just please discuss what the message to idr should say? > > How about something along the lines of: > > There is agreement that route leaks is a problem. > There is agreement that a change to bgp might provide a solution, but > concern about sidr undertaking the solution without idr participation. > Would the idr be willing to work with sidr in (a) defining the route leaks > problem, (b) devising a solution and (c) securing that solution? > The actual home for the work (idr, sidr, both, something else) would be > discussed. > > --Sandy > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
