Subject: [Sidrops] update to document status

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:24:36 +0000

Dear chairs, group,

As per discussion in the SIDROPS meeting yesterday, can
draft-ietf-sidrops-validating-bgp-speaker be marked as 'dead'? (for
clarification: this status is defined in RFC 6174 Section 4.2.6)

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:39:28 +0800

done

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:24 PM Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:41:20 +0800

> clarification: this status is defined in RFC 6174 Section 4.2.6)

job,

i will print a copy and bring it to the reg desk and you can jump up and
down on it and pour cold coffee on it.  :)

but seriously, why are you so exteemely vehement about this one draft?
it's just a mild attempt at doumenting something actually in play.

randy

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:46:10 +0000

> it's just a mild attempt at doumenting something actually in play.

because documenting bad practice doesn't make it good practice?

Nick

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 02:15:14 +0800

> because documenting bad practice doesn't make it good practice?

understand and don't disagree.  but i am happy to let things just
languish and do not feel a need to go nuclear.  this is not a hill
worthsnarking on, let alone dying.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:36:29 +0800

Job was just doing what I asked at the mic though...
anyway, I think this horsey is dead, let's move along to the next equine?