Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

[Joel Maslak <jmaslak () antelope net>]

You'll get more comments about the numbering scheme than any actual BCOP...

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes <yardiel () gmail com>
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:
>
> 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