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 I think that adding yet another required section to an internet draft is going to increase it's quality? No I do not.
Joel, You may be right. Calling out IANA considerations doesn't seem to have made the IETF any smarter on the shared ISP IPv4 space. And I have no idea if calling out security implications has helped reduce security-related design flaws. On the other hand, calling out ops issues in RFCs is a modest reform that at worst shouldn't hurt anything. That beats my next best idea: asking the ops area to schedule its meetings with the various NOG meetings instead of with the rest of the IETF so that the attendance is ops who dabble in development instead of developers who dabble in ops. You disagree? What are your thoughts on fixing the problem? 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