[Irtf-rr] Presentations from San Diego

[Yakov Rekhter]

Lyman,

> Yakov,
> 
> You're right that the development of BGP was not guided by rfc1126; 
> but the statement in section 2.1 of draft-irtf-routing-history-01.txt 
> doesn't say that the development of BGP was guided by rfc1126. It 
> says that rfc1126 was *intended* to guide the development of BGP - 
> that the people who wrote rfc1126 intended it to be the "requirements 
> spec" for BGP. It was never used as the requirements spec for BGP, 
> but some number of people believed at the time that it would (and 
> should) be so used.
> 
> This is more than just a nit for two reasons: first, because the 
> statement at the beginning of section 2.1 is not very clear, and can 
> easily be misread to mean that "rfc1126 guided the development of 
> BGP" (which is not true); and second, because a routing-history 
> document should record the fact that some amount of effort was 
> expended to develop a "Goals and Functional Requirements for 
> Inter-Autonomous System Routing" spec that turned out to be 
> irrelevant to the development of BGP (or IDRP, for that matter).

In this case how about replacing

    RFC1126 outlined a set of requirements that were to guide the
    development of BGP.

with the following:

    While some people expected a set of requirements outlined in RFC1126
    to guide the development of BGP, in reality the development of BGP 
    happened completely independently of RFC1126. In other words, from 
    the point of view of the development of BGP, RFC1126 turned out to be
    totally irrelevant.

Yakov.


> 
> - Lyman
> 
> At 7:40 AM -0700 8/10/04, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> >Avri,
> >
> >Quoting from draft-irtf-routing-history-01.txt (section 2.1):
> >
> >    RFC1126 outlined a set of requirements that were to guide the
> >    development of BGP.
> >
> >The above statement is blatantly false. The development of BGP
> >was NOT guided by rfc1126, and I know this for a fact, as I am one
> >of the co-authors of the BGP spec (starting from rfc1105).
> >
> >With this in mind I would suggest to replace the above sentence with
> >the following:
> >
> >    The development of BGP happened completely independently of
> >    RFC1126. In other words, from the point of view of the development
> >    of BGP, RFC1126 is totally irrelevant.
> >
> >Yakov.
> >_______________________________________________
> >irtf-rr mailing list
> >irtf-rr at puck.nether.net
> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/irtf-rr
>