RE: Node-id Hello - standards track or BCP?

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vishal Sharma [mailto:v.sharma@ieee.org] 
>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:28 PM
>To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; aruns@movaz.com; Zafar Ali
>Subject: RE: Node-id Hello - standards track or BCP?
>
>
>Adrian,
>
>I think this is appropriate for the BCP category.
>
>Also, I think Arun brings up a very good point about 
>consistency with addressing in Path/Resv. messages, and I 
>support the idea that it would be good to have clarification 
>to this effect in the draft.

Hi Vishal, 

Thanks for your feedback; much appreciated. As I mentioned in the reply
to Arun's email, we will put a clarification statement accordingly.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

>
>-Vishal
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
>> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:39 PM
>> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Node-id Hello - standards track or BCP?
>> 
>> 
>> (or informational?)
>> 
>> The question for you folks is:
>> 
>> does this change protocol behavior (standards track)
>> or narrow the choices for an implementation (BCP)
>> or describe what some implementations do (informational)
>> 
>> An essential difference between the first and the second might be
>> the behavior that one
>> LSR expects from its neighbor.
>> 
>> Opinions are cheap, but I want them anyway.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>> 
>