nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:00:14 -0800
Sean Donelan wrote:
The IETF (and other groups) developing "Best Common Practices" seem to sometimes forget 1. Is it a practice? 2. Is it a common practice? 3. Is it a best common practice? If no one is doing it, and they are largely ignored, did the IETF really do its job of consulting with the operational community to identify practices that are common and considered best? It is the organizational version of "running code."
From my perspective if the people who need the BCP aren't the one's
doing the writing then clearly something is going to be lost in translation. Writing things down, presenting and accepting criticism on them doesn't require the blessing of standards body. If we're so rigid a culture that we're incapable of handling the documentation of operational wisdom informally yet we find ourselves bound to a standards body which we claim isn't serving our interests, whose fault is that?
Current thread:
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?, (continued)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Steve Atkins (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jan 14)
- Re[2]: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Leigh Porter (Jan 13)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Joel Jaeggli (Jan 14)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)