RE: draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-01.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

I think you need to create the registry - its defined in RFC 1997 but
it does not look like the registry itself was ever created

Scott

---
>From cotton@icann.org  Thu Feb 20 10:53:37 2003
From: "Michelle S. Cotton" <cotton@icann.org>
To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>, "Scott  Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-01.txt
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:43:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <E18lj6b-0006Mk-00@roam.psg.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by newdev.harvard.edu id h1KFrb5k001139

Randy/Scott,

I'm home sick today so I don't have all my notes
with me, but looking at this again I was trying to
figure out if this will be a new registry or if
this new BGP well-known transitive community field
goes in an existing registry.

Can you clarify?

Thanks,

Michelle


-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Randy
Bush
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:19 PM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-01.txt


> I'm also holding a discuss on this

> note - this ID talks about a "proposal" but when its published as a BCP
> its more than a proposal

it is now going for info

> my issue can be cleared with the following (conceptual) RFC Ed note
> 
> dear RFC Ed please
> 
>     s/2. Proposal/2. NOPEER attribute/
>     s/The proposal/This memo/
>     s/The approach proposed here/The approach descibed here/
>     (I may have missed a few)
> 
>     change Security considerations to
> 
>     "The IANA should register NOPEER as a new BGP well-known
>     transitive community field"

ack

randy