On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA considerations and security considerations in special sections. They do so because each of these areas has landmines that the majority of working groups are ill equipped to consider on their own.
There should be an operations callout as well -- a section where proposed operations defaults (as well as statics for which a solid case can be made for an operations tunable) are extracted from the thick of it and offered for operator scrutiny prior to publication of the RFC.
Do you find this adjustment objectionable? Do you have other fresh ideas to float? Something better than the tired refrain about operators not showing up?
The operations area has a directorate. It reviews basically every draft in front of the IESG. I'm on it. Am I not an operator?
Well, you work at Zynga, a company which makes facebook games. Before that you worked at Nokia, company which makes phones but doesn't run phone networks. Before that it was Check Point Software, a company which makes firewalls but doesn't run networks. And before that it was the University of Oregon. Do you believe any of those roles offered you the perspective you'd gain working for an ISP, telco or MSO? Are you not an operator? Sure, why not. It's a big tent. Are you well qualified to represent operator interests before the IETF? You really haven't been speaking to the issues I had to deal with when I led an ISP and you've expressed little respect for the validity of issues I face now. But you do show up. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004