Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Open Standards vs IOPS etc [was Re: BGP community based IP filtering]
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb () clark net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:35:45 -0500

At 8:08 -0500 1/16/98, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 06:07:27AM -0500, Chris Layton wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Dorian R. Kim wrote:

But isn't what you described implementation details? I'm not sure if I
see a standard to track in this... Perhaps a better venue to track
something like this is an IEPG/RIPE/IOPS/etc.

Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think

Well, sort of.. I just threw the name out there as a possibility, since
it exists. This was not in any way an endorsement of IOPS as anything more
than just that.

-dorian

Haven't had a chance to follow up, but my head is now above water. I had
never heard of IOPS before.

From past experience with consortia, both inside and outside, I am a bit
uncomfortable with them in a standards-setting role compared with the
openness of IETF, IEPG, or NANOG.  This is very pertinent to me at the
moment as I hunt for a new job, as it would be quite impractical for me
individually to participate in a group with significant up-front membership
fees.  ARIN is a current example of that.

Way back when OSI Was The Answer, I used to work for the Corporation for
Open Systems -- in fact was the first technical person on staff. It had a
model where members had the only input, which may well have led to the
success of OSI.

I've watched various consortia first restrict access to documents, and see
an increasing trend in openness in such things as the ATM Forum.

Somehow, the networking community has managed to escape the tyranny of
Formal Standards Organizations.  I well remember putting several
performance standards through ANSI, getting to the Public Comment phase,
and having to stop progressing the document until we responded formally to
the "Digital Communications Performance Parameters are all very nice, but
this document is flawed because it says nothing about saving the whales."
I am _quite_ serious.

So there is a delicate path to walk between the closed organization and the
standards bureaucracy.

It's my observation that we really lack a mechanism for propagating
"operational" or "deployment" experience.  IETF/IDR at least was willing to
look at my multihoming draft.  I have another document,
tutorial/experienced based in a similar way, that deals with OSPF
deployment methods.  But since it's focused on enterprise networks, it
really doesn't seem to fit the inter-carrier operations audiences.

Howard





  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]