> I hear ya, but I feel like this obviates our need to begin discussions > with new design proposals. How can I offer you a design if we don't > agree on what it should do, right?
eric, folk agreed loooong ago that there is a class of problems we call leaks, and that they adversely affect operations. shane/danny did a draft starting to try to define the class. brian wrote a bit on his approach but did not follow through. i am in correspondence with some chinese folk who are thinking about the problem. but there is no actual proposal, other than brian's dropped one, for a solution. and, in the ietf, we tend not to put things in charters we are not confident of achieving. to me, the core of the problem is what semantics need to be communicated and the set of actions a distant player is expected to perform and what effect those actions should have. once we understand that, we can worry about the syntax and how it's transported. i.e. any bgp, dns, rpsl, foo transport discussion is just noise at the moment. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
