[ Top post, replying to my own mail ]
I suspect that I should just apologize again and then stay out of this
conversation.
Me being frustrated and grumpy doesn't benefit anyone.
Apologies to Dave and Bill for my pissyness.
W
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Warren Kumari <warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.)
I apologize. I hadn't intended the tone to come out the way it did.
I'm often frustrated by how far from operations IETF participants have
strayed, and how dismissive of the views of operators much of the IETF
has become (which is why I helped man the IETF Helpdesk at NANOG,
asked Chris Grundermann to present at IEPG / OpsAWG
(http://www.iepg.org/2015-03-22-ietf92/IETF-HelpDesk-Update_IETF92.pdf),
the Synergy list (
http://snozzages.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/synergy), etc).
My frustration leaked out, but it wasn't (intended to be) directed at
you - it was more general, undirected frustration...
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.
Yup, I fully agree -- we've been having long discussions on whether or
not to buy a loaf of bread - with no idea of how much the bread costs.
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?
I guess it's not -- it was more of my frustration leaking out...
W
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
---maf