This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Netmaster (exAS286)
netmaster at as286.net
Tue Nov 14 10:45:13 CET 2023
JB wrote on Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:22 AM CET: > See my discussion with Markus. TL;DR: Does that help? > It reads to me a bit like Markus' response, that (paraphrasing) we > shouldn't be trying to improve something that isn't working as well > as it could, and just implement hacks to work around it. Did I? My point - and I'll stick with it until I'm taught better: Improvements (often) do not justify breaking existing rules. Or in this particular case: Adding members-exclude to as-set without defining it somewhere "officially" (syntax and semantic) BEFORE, seems to me NOT the right way. (Esp., as the target is to get this into the complete IRR "eco system" and not just into RIPE.) Markus
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Adding an "exclude-member" field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]