Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps (Filtering and Rate Limiting Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure) to BCP

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> At this point I think that I have a pretty good idea how Barry and Danny
> feel about the "informational vs BCP" choice.
> 
> Does anyone else have a strong opinion on this issue? 

   I can't honestly call it a "strong" opinion, but...
I was _much_ happier when there was only one kind of RFC.

   "Best Current Practice," IMHO, has failed to find its niche. The name
implies that we don't have a solution, least of all a standard; and we
want to document how we deal with it _today_. (Indeed, the _name_ fits
this situation pretty well.)

   In fact, we end up documenting only _part_of_ how we deal with the
situation (losing the strength that comes from diversity); and the
process proves so painful that we never get around to updating it
(which is decidedly _not_ what this situation requires).

   I'd prefer to go for the simplest variety of RFC: so we won't feel
foolish when these recommendations become dated.

> Do service providers feel that this would effect how they would use the
> resulting RFC? I am suspecting that vendors will pay attention or not
> pay attention to the OPSEC capabilities drafts based on to what extent
> the service providers ask them to. 

   Writing a spec, I'd certainly use the RFC number (in either case).
Were I a vendor, I'd certainly respond using the RFC number -- to do
otherwise would be committing to unknown spec changes. The IETF does
_not_ have the clout to demand folks change to suit whatever we write.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>