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? Do I think that adding yet another required section to an internet draft is going to increase it's quality? No I do not. > 'Cause I have to tell you: Several years ago I picked a working group > and I showed up. And I faced and lost the argument against the > persistent certainty on the workability of ridiculous deployment > scenarios by folks who never managed any system larger than a software > development lab. And I stopped participating in the group about a year > ago as the core of participants who hadn't given up wandered off into > la la land. > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >
