To put it differently, 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.
Yes, we have produced a bit of a problem that our initial standards now
have a quality bar comparable with completed work. But we shouldn't
suddenly pick on OPS for that. If we are going to address that problem,
it ought to be in a coherent fashion that discusses how we deal with all
the legitimate requirements, including the fact that stuff has to be
operable.
This does not mean we have to simply accept what they (OSP) say. But it
does mean we should give it a fair review, looking at the details,
rather than objecting on principle.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Rosen <erosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
Eric> I don't see that OPSAWG has any business imposing
Eric> requirements on work done by other WGs in other Areas.
Obviously I agree with this statement. However I do believe that the
ops area can propose and build consensus on requirements that we all
agree to follow. I think this document may be a starting point in
such a discussion. I think Eric and I probably both agree it should
not be the final word.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf