On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document >> development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying >> that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice >> docs: >> http://www.ipbcop.org/ -- "Documented best practices for Engineers by Engineers" >> Some more info: >> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hughes-BCOP.pdf > > actually, that is not operators acting for operators at all. Yup, Randy is 100% correct, this was started, and has gotten much thrust, from non-ops / policy folk. But, the fact that it has gotten some traction / the comments that one hears from ops folk re: how hard it would be to do this in the IETF context is (IMO) telling. > it is yet > another non-ops group trying to colonize ops. documentd best practices > for engineers by policy folk. mission creep on their part, imiho. it > would be amusing if they did not already have a mission that is critical > for all of us. > >> There are BCOPs groups forming / within RIPE, NANOG, etc. > > ripe has published ops practice and even protocol docs for a many years. > as one example, route flap damping came from the ripe doc series. > nanog > may get serious, time will tell. > >> Out of interest, who all from here will be attending NANOG? > > i will be. and saw you at ripe. will you be in lusaka in a week? Unfortunately not -- I had some conflict thing... > >> One (IMO) good idea that was mentioned recently (sorry, I cannot >> remember by whom, may have been Jim Martin) was for someone from the >> IETF to present a short summary of interesting work at NOG meetings. > > this has been done many times. imiho, it has not stirred up much useful > interaction unless the ietfer says something really st00pid. Yes, I may be tilting at windmills, but I think that, if it were done right (short summaries, just enough to pique interest, and then "These are the bits we'd like feedback on, and here is how you can provide it (without joining yet another navel-having mailing list)" it could be really useful. But, doing it right would be the key... > then it > gets amusing. Yes. Maybe it should be designed to present the contentious bits? W > > randy > -- Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and you don't either...