[31000] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue Sep 5 03:50:27 2000
Date: 5 Sep 2000 00:47:26 -0700
Message-ID: <20000905074726.29598.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: smd@clock.org
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: jhawk@bbnplanet.com, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 04 September 2000, smd@clock.org wrote:
> The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between
> the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who
> have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too.
I think its great some organizations allow/encourage its employees to
participate in activites such as the IETF. However, there is a postive
feedback loop. What is the return on investment of an operator sending
folks to the IETF? Most major operators already get private presentations
and submit individual requirements to the vendors to incorporate in their
products. If UUNET needs some operational feature in a protocol, they
call up their Cisco engineer and say jump. Presto, in the next release
train, feature X shows up. Who needs rough consensus?
I think the IETF is valuable, but what do you tell investors when they
ask what's in it for them?
