On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:03:47AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > >> maybe I'm misled but I've never thought of the registries as bodies > >> whose purpose was to collect operational experience. > >> > >> but yes, I'd very much like for IETF to have more input from those > >> involved in operation, as well as having more input from more > >> applications developers, as well as having more input from those who > >> understand architecture, as well as having more input from actual users > >> or user groups. we need all of those kinds of input. > >> > >> Keith > >> > > > > as an IETF member, i might suggest that those mountains will > > not come to you on their own. i will suggest you follow > > the advice Ray (and others) have given - If you want to > > understand them and get their input, you have to go to > > their fora. > > > I told Ray that I would write up something and send it to ARIN. but I > don't see how that will solve the problem of getting more relevant input > to IETF. allocation sizes still need to be decided in IETF, not by > RIRs. if it's really necessary to give RIRs or ISPs more bits to play > with, then IMO there's a good chance that IETF needs to revisit some > other IPv6 design decisions. two step process: 1) go to arin 2) listen to their concerns i understand your desire to go to arin and tell them what to do, but listening and trying to understand WHY they are making the choices/options they are would go a long way - *IF* the IETF should reconsider what it has done. looking forward to your joining the PPML list and your participation there. -- --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