Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:56:19AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern: > There is indeed an argument that operational guidance has the dual > properties of > 1) needing to be out promptly > 2) changing over time as the operational environment changes. > I do realize that Job's initial motivation for this was specifically > operational. But most of the discussion has not seemed to be restricted My motivation is operation, deployment, and development. Eg; 7525 is all three, mpov. > to that. I do know that various people have asked for much more dynamic > protocol specs. And some of the examples cited have been protocol > specs. That is what makes me nervous. 7525 is not protocol spec, if that is what you are referring to; it even specifically says that it alters no RFC. If you are referring to something emitted from Kumari's pitch of "stable rfc version" (or whatever variation of that); I again ask that that discussion be separate. > If the focus is operational documents, there ought to be a way to do > something, and it ought to be worth a try. Finding ways for the IETF to > be more useful to operators, and for operators to be able to participate > in a fashion taht is more eff3ective for what they need, does seem > valuable. So too would be the additional operator involvement, in general.
