[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[Marshall Eubanks]

This issue had a big discussion about this at the RIPE-52 meeting now  
on-going in Istanbul, and I believe
that a resolution similar to 2005-1 is likely to result from it. Are  
you going to ignore them and the other communities.

I would suggest a BOF at the Montreal IETF. Here are the parameters  
for doing this :

-----
-- Cut-off date for requesting a session: Monday, June 5 at 17:00 ET  
(21:00
UTC/GMT).
-- Preliminary agenda published for comment: Friday, June 9 by  
midnight ET.
-- Cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session: Wednesday, June  
14 at
09:00 ET (13:00 UTC/GMT).
-- Final schedule published: Monday, June 19 before midnight ET.

Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions

Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using  
the "IETF
Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of  
the
information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your sessions.
-----

Regards
Marshall

On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> Also, I feel as though ARIN/NANOG discussion and forum would lead  
> to a more balanced internet community solution.  Keeping a document  
> that can reside in a specific "reachable" place would be nice.  If  
> it were to reside as a Best business Practice Document with ARIN/ 
> NANOG then I feel the ability to "change" it when needed would also  
> be easier to accomplish.
>
> Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:17 PM
> To: tony.li at tony.li
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
>
>
> "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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml