> This does not mean we have to simply accept what they (OPS) say. But it > does mean we should give it a fair review, looking at the details, > rather than objecting on principle. This is absolute nonsense. Most of the people actually doing work in the various areas do not have the time, interest, or expertise to do a detailed review of an OPS document. However, these are the people who are in the best position to determine whether "OAM Considerations" would help or hinder the work that they do. If we are going to talk about adding new hoops for folks to jump through, we should first discuss whether any such hoops are necessary. We should not start the discussion by looking at the details of the particular proposed hoops. > the OPS area has as much right to propose their requirements as any other > area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...) has. And generally, the > community has listened to such requests and gone along with them. Generally, the community (i.e., the folks doing the work in the various areas) has never even heard about these proposed requirements until after a BCP appears, at which time they are told that the BCP "has community consensus". Perhaps you're familiar with Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". To paraphrase, "but the plan for the destruction of earth was clearly posted in the planning department on alpha centauri, it's not our fault you didn't see it". _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf