[142750] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ronald Bonica)
Tue Jul 12 14:54:29 2011
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:51:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20110712154202.GA45271@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:42 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
> broken?)
>=20
[snip]
>=20
> But there is no roadmap in the IETF process now for LISP that says
> "We've got this 90% baked, we need to circulate a draft to the NANOG
> mailing list, request operator comments, and actively solicit operators
> to participate in the expanded test network". We need that mechanism
> to
> tell folks "hey, it's real enough your operational feedback is now
> useful" and "come test our new idea".
>=20
Leo,
We need to fix this problem. Without the feedback loop that you describe, t=
he IETF will never know whether they are producing useful stuff or nonsense=
.
How does the following sound as a solution:
Let's say we set up an new IETF mailing list, primarily for the use of oper=
ators. When an operator sees a draft that might be of interest to the opera=
tional community, he creates a new thread on the list, copying the draft au=
thors and WG chairs. (The authors and chairs can decide whether to add the =
WG to the thread). The OPS AD will consider thread contents when evaluating=
the draft.
Ron
