On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >> again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
> >> second-guess IETF design decisions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > "the" RIRs are membership organizations, with members
> > consisting of the operational community. they have to
> > try and work with whatever the IETF gives them.. and when
> > what the IETF provides is not operationaly feasable, they
> > can and will make changes so that an operational network
> > exists.
> >
> no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not
> operationally feasible". also, I suggest that the RIRs are only
> considering operations from a narrow point-of-view.
hum... something got your dander up... that doesnt qualify
as a demonstration? and your suggestions (as Ray pointed
out) are not reaching the RIR community by your posting here.
> > now the IETF is a membership organization as well, so
> > individuals can participate in both communities.. if
> > you feel that an RIR policy is wrong, then the correct
> > place to "fix" it is within the RIR community.
> perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its
> ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in
> IETF than in ARIN.
very true. but throwing protocols "over the wall" and
ignoring operational input does tend to affect the credibility
and/or the usefulness of said protocol. Or are you suggesting
that the IETF designs protocols without regard to operational
relevence?
>
> Keith
>
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
