On 14 Oct 2014, at 08:02, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/13/14 11:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> On 10/13/2014 10:33 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >>> On 10/13/14 1:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Exactly. I believe this draft, and the options draft, are *exactly* what >>>>> the IETF should do (and why we have an E in our name instead of an S; >>>>> we are not the Internet Standards Task Force). If our standards are >>>>> unrealistic, we should be the ones to do something about it... >>>> >>>> If it's that our standards are unrealistic, it would be useful to >>>> address this as changes to the standards. >>> >>> It's not entirely unrealistic to expect a consensus about observed >>> reality to emerge from ops before it evolves into protocol maintenance. >> >> Observed reality doesn't include recommendations. >> >> And if observed reality requires consensus, I doubt you're describing >> anything that involves either observation or reality. > > ... > > The goals of the v6ops working group are: > > 1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify > operational issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and > determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. These issues > will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in > Internet-Drafts. > > This work should primarily be conducted by those areas and WGs > which are responsible and best fit to analyze these problems, but > v6ops may also cooperate in focusing such work. > > 2. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify potential security > risks in the operation of shared IPv4/IPv6 networks, and document > operational practices to eliminate or mitigate those risks. > > This work will be done in cooperation with the Security area and > other relevant areas or working groups. > > 3. As a particular instance of (1) and (2), provide feedback to > the IPv6 WG regarding portions of the IPv6 specifications that > cause, or are likely to cause, operational or security concerns, > and work with the IPv6 WG to resolve those concerns. This feedback > will be published in Internet-Drafts or RFCs. > ...
… which suggests publishing the observations / problem statement in one draft in v6ops, and then progressing recommendations in a separate document in conjuction with opsec seems perfectly reasonable? I’m puzzled by the length of this conversation / debate… Tim _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
