On 4/7/2015 12:10 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
What is the cost of removing it?
...
There is no cost to turning it off.
...
There is also an indirect cost in the IETF's knowledge of its protocols.
As others have noted, we should be eating our own dog food. Knowing
how to run each protocol and especially how to run protocols as a
mixture, certainly should be an IETF goal.
Known by whom? Glen? Matt? The other AMS folk?
This sounds like motherhood and apple pie -- "We, the IETF, should
know how to run each protocol and especially how to run protocols as a
mixture. And we should floss daily and always call our granny on her
birthday..."
(The freedom to publicly speak so condescendingly and dismissively of
others' views and suggestions remains a true hallmark of the IETF, as
does the anticipated reaction against my noting the rudeness... Thank
you for that. It's curious that we object more to the noting of
rudeness than to its generation.)
Had you chosen to solicit clarification, I'd have observed that while
AMS does indeed have the primary hands-on, others in the IETF also deal
with such configuration and monitoring experience, starting with the
IAOC and propagating out to others.
That is, operations problems get reported up the chain, beyond AMS.
And the more ops wrinkles are shared with the community -- such as is
happening now -- the more the community learns from that experience.
That is the reason I said that Ray should have supplied more information
in the original query.
And, of course, many of us are /users/ of these mechanism, which imparts
some other experiences.
But, before this thread, how many people here even knew we were
running proftpd?
How is that, or the rest of the questions you ask in that paragraph,
relevant?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net