[ratelimits] I-D-ing rate limiting?
ed.lewis at neustar.biz
Mon Apr 22 13:46:07 UTC 2013
(This is kind of off-topic for RRL, it relates to the gangster-on-gangster violence that arises when "where do we publish" comes up.)
On Apr 21, 2013, at 17:37, Jay Daley wrote:
> I agree. This is an implementation issue not a protocol issue. But there is a benefit to users of DNS servers knowing whether feature X on one implementation is identical, equivalent or similar to feature Y on another implementation. A role for a different standards body?
Documentation good. No documentation bad. What's interesting is the last question. The IETF has become the de facto go-to organization for Internet documents. I have been very frustrated with the output of the IETF for some time. I don't want to abandon the IETF but "it's become a bad marriage."
What can be done (in theory) - RFCs can be submitted by individuals (in theory, separate from the IETF) but that hasn't worked smoothly. I think there's a growing realization of that and that might change (that is, individual submissions have a place).
NANOG has started "BCOP" - Best Current Operating Practices, which might be helpful. ISOC has also taken a look at some way to establish a BCP series for operators.
I really think that a severing of the IETF from the DNS operating community is a bad thing. But "documentation good" means there has to be a venue for a reviewed and permanently (relatively) reference-able set of documents like this.
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ratelimits