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

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

>>> a - the whole purpose of this exercise is to create a well-known
>>>     community that operators treat as transitive
>> Let's not play the words. IANA allocation is done in protocol-specific
>> terms. Unlike BGP attributes, communities do not have the
>> well-know/optional characteristic. Transitivity is defined for
>> extended communities, not the regular ones. IANA and the potential
>> reader will need to ignore these words to avoid confusion.

> <http://psg.com/~randy/970605.nanog.com/>

Randy once said: "show me the rfc"... ;-p

>>> b - as there is no extended community (show me the rfc), the current
>>>     reference is not ambiguous.
>> When/if there is one, the document will be confusing.

> not sane to start normative references to future possbibilities.  this
> way lies chaos.

where is the ref to the spec defining what this doc is trying to
allocate?

Alex