This does not mean we have to simply accept what they (OPS) say. But it
does mean we should give it a fair review, looking at the details,
rather than objecting on principle.
This is absolute nonsense. Most of the people actually doing work in the
various areas do not have the time, interest, or expertise to do a detailed
review of an OPS document. However, these are the people who are in the
best position to determine whether "OAM Considerations" would help or hinder
the work that they do.
If we are going to talk about adding new hoops for folks to jump through, we
should first discuss whether any such hoops are necessary. We should not
start the discussion by looking at the details of the particular proposed
the OPS area has as much right to propose their requirements as any other
area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...) has. And generally, the
community has listened to such requests and gone along with them.
Generally, the community (i.e., the folks doing the work in the various
areas) has never even heard about these proposed requirements until after a
BCP appears, at which time they are told that the BCP "has community
consensus". Perhaps you're familiar with Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy". To paraphrase, "but the plan for the destruction of
earth was clearly posted in the planning department on alpha centauri, it's
not our fault you didn't see it".
Ietf mailing list