[37727] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Stability of the Internet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed May 23 14:21:57 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200105231757.RAA01398@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: rmeyer@mhsc.com (Roeland Meyer)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:57:40 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: rmeyer@mhsc.com (Roeland Meyer), bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E4662@condor.mhsc.com> from "Roeland Meyer" at May 23, 2001 10:36:50 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > > business and in into the PSO business it is now chartered for.
> >
> > True. And it should also get out of the operations biz,
> > but that is another kettle of fish.
>
> The problem there is that there is no place for operations discussions,
> AFAICT. This may be an oversight on part of the ICANN conceptual framework.
> Most of the rest of us assumed (yeah, I know) that the IETF would handle
> that. Agreed, this may be in error. But, it is an error without a solution.
Protocols are not Operations.
Operations fourms exist independent of IETF.
(see the various *NOG's, EOF-LIST, APOP, et.al.)
Protocol developers & Policy makers should listen
to Operators.
To subsume operations in the IETF is just as bad as
subsuming policy in the IETF.
--bill
