[ratelimits] I-D-ing rate limiting?

[Edward Lewis]

(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.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
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...
URL: <http://lists.redbarn.org/pipermail/ratelimits/attachments/20130422/3ba60bb3/attachment.htm>