[cooperation-wg] Internet governance

Hi Roland,

Roland Perry wrote:

[...]

> >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 six weeks 
> >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.

> 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).

If that is a hard concept to explain, a comparison that might work could 
be writing a novel. You start with an idea, develop a draft and then work 
with an editor to sand down the rough edges before it is ready to go to 
press.

Regards,

Leo


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131121/c59cd3ce/attachment.p7s>