On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote: > > > Hello NANOGers, > > The NANOG BCOP committee is currently considering strategies on how to best > create a numbering scheme for the BCOP appeals. As we all know, most public > technical references (IETF, etc) have numbers to clarify references. The goal > is for NANOG BCOPs to follow some sort of same style. > > The BCOP committee is looking for feedback and comments on this topic. > > Currently, the below numbering scheme is being considered: > > A proposed numbering scheme can be based on how the appeals appeals in the > BCOP topics are presented as shown below: > > http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals > > In the above page, the idea is to introduce a 100-th range for each category > and as the BCOPs. This way a 100th number range generally identifies each of > the categories we currently have. An example is:
identifier/locator overload. giving intergers intrinsic meaning is generally a mistake imho. > BCP Range Area of Practice > 100 - 199 EBGPs > 200 - 299 IGPs > 300 - 399 Ethernet > 400 - 499 Class of Service > 500 - 599 Network Information Processing > 600 - 699 Security > 700 - 799 MPLS > 800 - 899 Generalized > > An arguable objection could be that the range is limited...but a > counter-argument is that considering more than 100 BCOPs would be either a > great success or just a sign of failure for the NANOG community ... > > Comments or Thoughts ? > > > Yardiel Fuentes > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
