ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IETF] Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

2013-05-31 20:21:44

On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:

Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ -- "Documented best practices for Engineers by 
Engineers"
Some more info:
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hughes-BCOP.pdf

actually, that is not operators acting for operators at all.

Yup, Randy is 100% correct, this was started, and has gotten much thrust,  from 
non-ops / policy folk.

But, the fact that it has gotten some traction / the comments that one hears 
from ops folk re: how hard it would be to do this in the IETF context is (IMO) 
telling.

 it is yet
another non-ops group trying to colonize ops.  documentd best practices
for engineers by policy folk.  mission creep on their part, imiho.  it
would be amusing if they did not already have a mission that is critical
for all of us.

There are BCOPs groups forming / within RIPE, NANOG, etc. 

ripe has published ops practice and even protocol docs for a many years.
as one example, route flap damping came from the ripe doc series.  
nanog
may get serious, time will tell.

Out of interest, who all from here will be attending NANOG? 

i will be.  and saw you at ripe.  will you be in lusaka in a week?

Unfortunately not -- I had some conflict thing...


One (IMO) good idea that was mentioned recently (sorry, I cannot
remember by whom, may have been Jim Martin) was for someone from the
IETF to present a short summary of interesting work at NOG meetings.

this has been done many times.  imiho, it has not stirred up much useful
interaction unless the ietfer says something really st00pid.  

Yes, I may be tilting at windmills, but I think that, if it were done right 
(short summaries, just enough to pique interest, and then "These are the bits 
we'd like feedback on, and here is how you can provide it (without joining yet 
another navel-having mailing list)" it could be really useful. But, doing it 
right would be the key...

then it
gets amusing.

Yes. Maybe it should be designed to present the contentious bits?
W



randy


-- 
Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and you don't either...