On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
second-guess IETF design decisions.
"the" RIRs are membership organizations, with members
consisting of the operational community. they have to
try and work with whatever the IETF gives them.. and when
what the IETF provides is not operationaly feasable, they
can and will make changes so that an operational network
no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not
operationally feasible". also, I suggest that the RIRs are only
considering operations from a narrow point-of-view.
hum... something got your dander up... that doesnt qualify
as a demonstration? and your suggestions (as Ray pointed
out) are not reaching the RIR community by your posting here.
now the IETF is a membership organization as well, so
individuals can participate in both communities.. if
you feel that an RIR policy is wrong, then the correct
place to "fix" it is within the RIR community.
perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its
ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in
IETF than in ARIN.
very true. but throwing protocols "over the wall" and
ignoring operational input does tend to affect the credibility
and/or the usefulness of said protocol. Or are you suggesting
that the IETF designs protocols without regard to operational
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
Ietf mailing list