> On Jul 20, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> That's exactly why I asked about RIPE's solution. Before proposing >>>>> a solution, don't we want to study one that apparently works? >>>> Works by what metric? >>> worked for us in publishing an op doc which was eventually followed by >>> an rfc >> I think an example of a RFC of this sort is 2182/BCP-16. > > uh, non sequitur. the subject was ripe docs working. 2182 was never a > ripe doc, and the ietf pub cycle was just fine for it. I don’t think as much as you do here. That document has aged well and is good ops advice (for DNS operators). > but maybe folk could get the point here if (the metaphorical) you could > point to an example op doc which is needed asap, is in good shape, and > ietf rfc processing would cause ops issues. a real example, might help. As I said previously, the tools at the IETF are decent, and I can publish something before the day is out if I really think it’s necessary. Maybe given recent events I should write up things like AS_PATH filtering plus prefix list filtering is a good thing so my ops alerting system will stop telling me of weird routing issues. It fires all the time and periodically with something big going on (eg: recent 701 event). - Jared
