[31007] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Sep 5 07:47:32 2000
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <200009051136.UAA20516@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20000905074726.29598.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net> from Sean Donelan at
"Sep 5, 2000 00:47:26 am"
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:36:04 +0859 ()
Cc: smd@clock.org, jhawk@bbnplanet.com, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean;
> I think the IETF is valuable, but what do you tell investors when they
> ask what's in it for them?
You have no problem, because it is as good as ISO.
Moverover, within NANOG context, it is better than ISO, because it
is US-centric that 2 of 3 meetings in a year is held in US (remaining
one often in CA).
> 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?
Then, no one.
In theory, internet/routing areas are the only area where so valued
rough consensus and interoperability could be meaningful.
Physical/datalink layer protocols are purely local. Transport/application
layer protocols are chosen by the market, because of the end to end
principle,
Masataka Ohta
