[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[Thomas Narten]

"Tony Li" <tli at tropos.com> writes:

> > What I see frustrating here is that everyone agrees we need 
> > some sort of "internet community agreement" that addresses V6 
> > routing.  I hear alot of people asking for this, including 
> > myself.  Yet I dont hear any specific forum stepping forward 
> > to help facilitate this need.

> What you're asking for is a "routing and addressing architecture".
> Currently, it's really the purview of the IETF, except that they've
> basically abdicated the role.  This creates a vacuum, which, as you note
> cries out to be filled.  There are multiple ways to make progress here,
> but my favorite is for ARIN to simply push the problem back to the IETF
> and insist on a sensible and scalable solution.

I think that what people want has a lot to do with operations and
operational practices, an area the IETF struggles with at times. There
is v6ops WG in the IETF:

    http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html

Reading the charter, my takes is that what I think I'm hearing people
calling for (best practices on things like route filters, is
deaggration allowed or not and under what conditions, etc., etc.)
would be in-scope there.

Maybe it's time to approach that group (and the ADs), see if there is
a willingness to take on such work in the IETF. What they will want to
see is a critical mass of folk agreeing on the work that needs to be
done (i.e., what kind of document and what is in it) and assurance
that there are enough volunteers to do the actual work.  Even if the
work is "officially" housed there, there is no reason why the work
couldn't also be discussed in the various RIR and operations
groups.

I think the IETF would be as good a place as any to try and do this
work.  (And I'm willing to help make this happen if people think this
is worth pursuing.)

Thomas