This has become a long and tortuous rat hole, leading off into branching rat holes.
It all started with prospective text to the idr wg about the route leaks problem. The furor started over the suggested text's stated motivation for asking. But there have been no objections to conferring with idr and some expressions of agreement. So can we go just please discuss what the message to idr should say? How about something along the lines of: There is agreement that route leaks is a problem. There is agreement that a change to bgp might provide a solution, but concern about sidr undertaking the solution without idr participation. Would the idr be willing to work with sidr in (a) defining the route leaks problem, (b) devising a solution and (c) securing that solution? The actual home for the work (idr, sidr, both, something else) would be discussed. --Sandy --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
