RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I think that instead of talking about RFC1771, you should be talking
about draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-20.txt, which I suspect is the doc that
will re-cycle at DS and obsolete 1771.

By the way Alex, that doc does not have an abstract, and normally
we do want an abstract, and it should state in the abstract that
it obsoletes RFC 1771.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 22:07
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft 
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
>