Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155014841A1@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>Well, back then.... when 1771 came out, it cannot have depended
>on RFC2385... or so I think... :-)
>

True, though I'm not certain when the code was actually first 
deployed...

Anyway -- Alex tells me that 1771 is recycling at Draft, and that this 
process has snagged because of 2385.  We agreed, I think, that a waiver 
supported by RFC was the proper procedure.  I'm trying to figure out 
proper wording changes to my draft; suggestions welcome.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)