[88650] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Tue Feb 14 16:57:48 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060214214731.GA15613@1-4-5.net>
Cc: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>,
"'Eastgard, Tom'" <tom.eastgard@boeing.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:55:54 -0500
To: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:47 PM, David Meyer wrote:
> Tony/all,
>
>> I am not going to speak for the IETF, but why would they? Their
>> meetings are
>> already open, and to be globally fair the proposed coordinators
>> would have
>> to attend 3-5 extra meetings a year to cover all the ops groups.
>
> I am also not speaking for the IETF (IAB), but the IAB has
> undertaken the task of trying to bring a little of what's
> happening in the IETF to the operator community (and
> hopefully in the process engaging folks to come to the
> IETF). Now, while many in the IETF argue that there is no
> such thing as an "operator community", I personally see
> it differently, and there are many of us who think that
> operator input is sorely missing from the IETF process.
> That is one of the reasons we did the NANOG 35 IPv6
> multihoming BOF (and are doing the same at the upcoming
> apricot meeting).
Hmm, well, when there is lots of vendor and academia involvement, no,
there's no operator community presented in number of things I'm
following in the IETF. Take manet, for example, I don't even know to
begin where to inject operator concerns/requirements. :-/
I think this is as much an IETF issue as it is of the operator
community. Operators need to devote time to IETF to make the work in
the IETF most relevant to the operators needs.
Best regards,
Christian
