Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

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 ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004