[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[Thomas Narten]

Responding to a number of thoughts...

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com writes:

> 	this is really passing the buck Jason.  Asking ARIN to 
> 	be your backstop instead of coming up with your own "good
> 	IP stewardship policy" is placing an unwanted burden on 
> 	ARIN.

I don't think he's asking ARIN to be a backstop. There are frequently
situations where the local pressures/interests are in conflict with
global ones. Being able to point to a document that is recognized and
broadly accepted as a "best current practice" of sorts (that
represents the broader and more global interest) is a very useful tool
for pushing back on local pressures. What is being asked for is a
document that folk can point to so they can say "see, it isn't just me
saying this, it's the global community".

"Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger at eli.net> writes:

> Tony- That would be nice if IETF could do this.  The second issue we
> face is, we need a solution now, not in a year.

Let's be honest, we don't have a document now, and we won't get one
now. Can't have one until people start working on it, it gets
reviewed, gets revised, etc. This is independent of the venue that is
"home" to the work.

At the end of the day, how quickly something moves though a venue
(IETF, ARIN, etc.) depends a lot on the people doing the work. If
people cooperate, review quickly, iterate quickly, etc., work can be
done fairly quickly. But if there is no agreement on the content of
what is being agreed on, ...

But I see no reason why this needs to take more than 6-12 months. But
that sort of depends on how big of an effort it is. How many pages of
text do we think we are taking about? 10? 100? (I'd expect closer to
10-20), but that needs to be scoped out.

"Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger at eli.net> writes:

> 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.

Having the effort housed in the IETF has the advantage that it's a
global organization, and has a well-defined publication facility
(RFCs). Doing this in one of the RIR or NOG groups has the issue that
it would be more regional.

"Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net)" <jason.schiller at mci.com> writes:

> And the open process of ARIN and a single living policy document that is
> ammended and revised seems well suited to this task.

Is a living document what people really want? One problem with
"living" is that folk can argue that "it's still under discussion, so
it hasn't been agreed to". IMO, the goal should be a "finished"
document (i.e., RFC). But it can be made clear that the document will
be updated in the future, and an Internet-Draft with updates can be
worked on at any time once the base is finished. 

> Yet ARIN/NANOG are US centric.  What forums would take on this role in
> other parts of the globe, and how would all of these get synthesized into
> a single global policy standard?

Have the work housed in the IETF, but do a lot of outreach to the  RIR
and NOG communities. For example see what has been happening with the
shim6 effort (taking it to the NOG groups).

Also, one doesn't have to physically go to the IETF to
participate. Indeed, it's unclear that face-to-face IETF meetings
would be required to actually work on the document.

> I guess my biggest concern is that I'm not sure there is a critical mass
> of operators from each of the regions at the IETF.

Take the document to the operators then. What is most important at the
end of the day is that the document itself has been broadly reviewed
by operators. No need to come to meetings for that.

Thomas