On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > >> again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > >> second-guess IETF design decisions. > >> > >> > > > > "the" RIRs are membership organizations, with members > > consisting of the operational community. they have to > > try and work with whatever the IETF gives them.. and when > > what the IETF provides is not operationaly feasable, they > > can and will make changes so that an operational network > > exists. > > > no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not > operationally feasible". also, I suggest that the RIRs are only > considering operations from a narrow point-of-view. hum... something got your dander up... that doesnt qualify as a demonstration? and your suggestions (as Ray pointed out) are not reaching the RIR community by your posting here. > > now the IETF is a membership organization as well, so > > individuals can participate in both communities.. if > > you feel that an RIR policy is wrong, then the correct > > place to "fix" it is within the RIR community. > perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its > ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in > IETF than in ARIN. very true. but throwing protocols "over the wall" and ignoring operational input does tend to affect the credibility and/or the usefulness of said protocol. Or are you suggesting that the IETF designs protocols without regard to operational relevence? > > Keith > -- --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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf