question in draft-ietf-ngtrans-harden-01.txt

[kay (ノグチケイ)]

Hi bob,
Thank you for quick reply.

| It is meant to be vague so so to imply high reliability in any and all
| meaningful areas. It is unlikely it would ever be really measured as we are
| by and large self policing, but it tries to convey intent.

I understand above.

Is this RFC standard style to mention reliability?

How about exactly mentioning like above(imply high reliability)
to avoid confusion?

P.S.
Sorry for appending your mail, koji ;p 

Bob Fink <fink@es.net> wrote

| At 06:04 PM 8/30/99 +0900, =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCJU4lMCVBJTElJBsoQg==?= wrote:
| >Hi, folks
| >
| >I have one question in draft-ietf-ngtrans-harden-01.txt.
| >In Section 7.1, b, draft says
| >
| >        appropriate hierarchy.  This includes a high uptime 
| >        availability of the site router (greater than 99%). This
| >
| >What does this "99%" digit mean?
| >
| >     1) availability of bgp peering with neighbours?
| >     2) availability of router machine itself?
| >     3) or something else?
| 
| It is meant to be vague so so to imply high reliability in any and all
| meaningful areas. It is unlikely it would ever be really measured as we are
| by and large self policing, but it tries to convey intent.
| 
| 
| Bob
--- 
kay