Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops docs?

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 20, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>>>> That's exactly why I asked about RIPE's solution. Before proposing
>>>>> a solution, don't we want to study one that apparently works?
>>>> Works by what metric?
>>> worked for us in publishing an op doc which was eventually followed by
>>> an rfc
>> I think an example of a RFC of this sort is 2182/BCP-16.
> 
> uh, non sequitur.  the subject was ripe docs working.  2182 was never a
> ripe doc, and the ietf pub cycle was just fine for it.

I don’t think as much as you do here.  That document has aged well and is good ops advice (for DNS operators).

> but maybe folk could get the point here if (the metaphorical) you could
> point to an example op doc which is needed asap, is in good shape, and
> ietf rfc processing would cause ops issues.  a real example, might help.

As I said previously, the tools at the IETF are decent, and I can publish something before the day is out if I really think it’s necessary.  Maybe given recent events I should write up things like AS_PATH filtering plus prefix list filtering is a good thing so my ops alerting system will stop telling me of weird routing issues.  It fires all the time and periodically with something big going on (eg: recent 701 event).

- Jared