[cooperation-wg] Internet governance
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Internet governance
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Internet governance
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roland Perry
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Nov 22 17:18:18 CET 2013
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46 at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 09:48:58 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> writes >> >At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had >> >been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As >> >you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about >> > later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which >> >documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." >> >> I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. > >I expect it was, although don't remember specific discussions. The >bootstrap policy was always intended as a short term experiment to find >out what was needed in the longer term. Not discussing IXPs' needs would >have been odd. They were discussed, but getting acceptance of the concept that IXPs are neutral, with the idea of a single "upstream" not really applying, was a struggle. We at the IXPs could see it, obviously. >> But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick >> run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, >> the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and >> capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF >> (and other technical) jargon. > >As I see it, running code is a synonym for "things that work" and >developing things that work generally requires prototyping, testing and >revision. I think this is a good example of a process that tested a >policy, found where it needed to be improved for the general case (ISP >use) and also came up with other policies that supported edge cases, like >IXPs and root DNS servers (ripe-223). "Things that work" is a good alternative description, because it doesn't quite so much imply you have to make a physical working prototype (which several people I've spoken to assume is the case) to test the concept - debating it in the abstract is good enough. -- Roland Perry
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Internet governance
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Internet governance
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]