[142646] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Mon Jul 11 17:12:11 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVhRHA4RgDY6464ROONEqLfG6cfr4srV9wbnpoCs98yjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:10:50 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> =
wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA =
considerations
>>>>>>> and security considerations in special sections. They do so =
because
>>>>>>> each of these areas has landmines that the majority of working =
groups
>>>>>>> are ill equipped to consider on their own.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> There should be an operations callout as well -- a section where
>>>>>>> proposed operations defaults (as well as statics for which a =
solid
>>>>>>> case can be made for an operations tunable) are extracted from =
the
>>>>>>> thick of it and offered for operator scrutiny prior to =
publication of
>>>>>>> the RFC.
>>>=20
>>> Do you find this adjustment objectionable?
>>=20
>> Do I think that adding yet another required section to an
>> internet draft is going to increase it's quality?
>> No I do not.
>=20
> Joel,
>=20
> You may be right. Calling out IANA considerations doesn't seem to have
> made the IETF any smarter on the shared ISP IPv4 space. And I have no
> idea if calling out security implications has helped reduce
> security-related design flaws.
>=20
> On the other hand, calling out ops issues in RFCs is a modest reform
> that at worst shouldn't hurt anything.
To my mind, one of the really good criterion for an operational =
considerations document is some actual experience running it.
> That beats my next best idea:
> asking the ops area to schedule its meetings with the various NOG
> meetings instead of with the rest of the IETF so that the attendance
> is ops who dabble in development instead of developers who dabble in
> ops.
The OPS area works on OPS and Management. Protocol development of the =
sort you're describing generally occurs in working-groups chartered in =
the Internet or Routing areas...=20
At least one of the ops chairs are on this list attends nanog regularly =
etc. Participants, especially those that actually do the work are the =
important part as far as I'm concerned. Rough consensus is an ugly an =
imperfect business, it should be recognized that not everyone is going =
to come away from every exchange with what they want.
> You disagree? What are your thoughts on fixing the problem?
I'm not sure that we agree on the dimensions of the problem.
on the question of ipv6 is broken:
* You're going to have to cope with what you have and can squeeze out of =
vendors in the near term. implmentors don't change that fast.
* People have to show up with the problem statement and stick around to =
do the work
* the outcomes are not always pretty.
I hope that my time is productively employed.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance-00
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>=20
