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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to