Re: IP provider performance measurement BOF

[Sean Doran <smd () sprint net>]

In message <199503082144.QAA01126 () curtis ansremote com>, Curtis Villamizar writ
es:

| IMO the IETF Operations Area has not been unfair or hostile toward
| providers.  I'm not sure what the objections are.

I didn't mean to suggest that they are.

My objections are more philosophical and, perhaps, pragmatic.

I would like to see Internet standards-describing bodies
stay well away from trying to standardize operational
metrics and operational procedures.

This is to avoid three things:

        -- operators who say, "our NIC is RFC 9000 compliant"   

        -- attempting to define what an operational
           organization should do as an Internet standard:
           "An ISP that is compliant with this standard
           will..."  which is particularly amusing if it
           doesn't make business sense in a particular case,
           or when it is drafted by people who mispredict
           real operational issues (due to lack of foresight
           or lack of experience) that obviate the standard.

           This is essentially to avoid, "our competitor's
           organization is not RFC 9000 compliant"

        -- Operators and standards-folks are aliens from
           another planet.  Operators typically will bend
           standards as they see fit for their business,
           while standards-folks attempt to make it easy for
           anyone -- say, someone new to the field -- to
           interoperate with the current operators.

           In extreme cases, operators completely ignore or
           break standards willy-nilly, while standards-
           folks get quite noisy when standards aren't
           followed to the letter.  I have run into both,
           and, arguably, am an example of the former type.

           There is a tension between the two mindsets which
           is a good one for the Internet in general, but
           which essentialy necessitates, in my opinion, a
           division into two separate clubs when it comes to 
           working out issues that are more or less fully
           in the domain of operators vs. standards folks.

           That's not to say that standards-folks should
           be discouraged from commenting on how we run our
           parts of the Internet, nor that operators should
           be told to shut up in working groups -- in fact,
           I like to see operators in working groups and
           standards-folks at NANOGs or IEPGs.  However,
           any kind of consesus-building about operations
           issues or discussions about metrics showing good
           or bad things about operators' networks should
           be done in operators' forums, and not standards
           bodies.

           Conversely, protocol standards shouldn't be done
           at operators' forums.

An example of how things work differently among high
concentrations of operators vs high concentrations of 
standards-folks is the CIDR issue.   CIDRD at IETF and
the CIDR talks at NANOG are quite different, involve
different issues, and come up with very different forms
of consensus.

I believe this is a good thing, and should be encouraged.

So, wrt the provider measurement BOF, I am quite happy to
see the standards-folks describe standard tools which
operators can use to work out operational issues in
operators' forums.

I would not like to see the Operations Area turn into an
olympics for providers any more than for vendors in other
areas.

        Sean.