On 9/Sep/20 10:03, Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote: > De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in > order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure > (e.g. a standard track RFC). > While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its > viability. > A well written BCP would be much more valuable, and perhaps when we > get to a critical mass, codification would be a natural process, > rather than artificially enforcing people doing stuff they don’t see > value (ROI) in, discussion here perfectly reflects the state of art. This. Mark.
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-fa... Mark Tinka via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is d... Robert Raszuk via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0... Mark Tinka via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto ... Mark Tinka via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-... Chriztoffer Hansen via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-... Arnold Nipper via NANOG
- RE: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-... adam via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto &quo... Jeff Tantsura via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto ... Robert Raszuk via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-... Jeff Tantsura via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto &quo... Mark Tinka via NANOG
- Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto &quo... Nick Hilliard via NANOG