On 4/7/2015 2:37 PM, Warren Kumari 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
Warren,
Thank you for the rapid response and its content. I'll in turn
apologize for choosing you to single out; there's some separate recent
history of rudeness -- IMO far worse than what you indulged in -- on a
different list going without accountability.
But in this case, it's worth noting that, now that you've clarified your
point, it seems an entirely relevant one to me. Casting it in my own
terms:
We should be paying attention to our own operations, since it moves
things from abstractions to immediate reality.
The wgs I'm around don't dismiss ops issues; mostly I'd say we ignore
them. They don't get raised enough to have a track record of being
dismissed.
Besides the question of professionalism, one of the other damages of our
permitting casual roughness in postings is that we wind up missing
relevant issues to consider.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net