On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:03:47AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >> maybe I'm misled but I've never thought of the registries as bodies
> >> whose purpose was to collect operational experience.
> >>
> >> but yes, I'd very much like for IETF to have more input from those
> >> involved in operation, as well as having more input from more
> >> applications developers, as well as having more input from those who
> >> understand architecture, as well as having more input from actual users
> >> or user groups. we need all of those kinds of input.
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >
> > as an IETF member, i might suggest that those mountains will
> > not come to you on their own. i will suggest you follow
> > the advice Ray (and others) have given - If you want to
> > understand them and get their input, you have to go to
> > their fora.
> >
> I told Ray that I would write up something and send it to ARIN. but I
> don't see how that will solve the problem of getting more relevant input
> to IETF. allocation sizes still need to be decided in IETF, not by
> RIRs. if it's really necessary to give RIRs or ISPs more bits to play
> with, then IMO there's a good chance that IETF needs to revisit some
> other IPv6 design decisions.
two step process:
1) go to arin
2) listen to their concerns
i understand your desire to go to arin and tell them what
to do, but listening and trying to understand WHY they are
making the choices/options they are would go a long way -
*IF* the IETF should reconsider what it has done.
looking forward to your joining the PPML list and your participation
there.
--
--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
