Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:
> Hello NANOGers,
>
> The  NANOG BCOP committee is currently considering strategies on how to best create a numbering scheme for the BCOP 
> appeals. As we all know, most public technical references (IETF, etc) have numbers to clarify references. The goal is 
> for NANOG BCOPs to follow some sort of same style.
>
> The BCOP committee is looking for feedback and comments on this topic.
>
> Currently, the below numbering scheme is being considered:
>
> A proposed numbering scheme can be based on how the appeals appeals in the BCOP topics are presented as shown below:
>
> http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals
>
> In the above page, the idea is to introduce a 100-th range for each category and as the BCOPs. This way a 100th 
> number range generally identifies each of the categories we currently have. An example is:

identifier/locator overload.

giving intergers intrinsic meaning is generally a mistake imho.

> BCP Range             Area of Practice
> 100 - 199             EBGPs                   
> 200 - 299             IGPs
> 300 - 399             Ethernet
> 400 - 499             Class of Service
> 500 - 599             Network Information Processing
> 600 - 699             Security
> 700 - 799             MPLS
> 800 - 899             Generalized
>
> An arguable objection could be that the range is limited...but a counter-argument is that considering more than 100 
> BCOPs would be either a great success or just a sign of failure for the NANOG community ...
>
> Comments or Thoughts ?
>
>
> Yardiel Fuentes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature