[88652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Meyer)
Tue Feb 14 17:08:22 2006
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:07:26 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Cc: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>,
"'Eastgard, Tom'" <tom.eastgard@boeing.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <990A4407-8D65-4211-8BB1-E068EDC96C3A@corp.earthlink.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Christian
> On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:47 PM, David Meyer wrote:
>=20
> > Tony/all,
> >
> >>I am not going to speak for the IETF, but why would they? Their =20
> >>meetings are
> >>already open, and to be globally fair the proposed coordinators =20
> >>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).
>=20
> Hmm, well, when there is lots of vendor and academia involvement, no, =20
> there's no operator community presented in number of things I'm =20
> following in the IETF. Take manet, for example, I don't even know to =20
> begin where to inject operator concerns/requirements. :-/
Well taken. And further, I would say manet is more the
rule than the exception in this respect. BTW, it took me
years to become facile with the (IETF) process (if I'm
even there now :-)). I can say that I had excellent
mentoring (Randy and perhaps a few others), so that
helped. Maybe we need something not as formal as an IETF
liaison relationship, but perhaps something like
that. More thinking required...
> I think this is as much an IETF issue as it is of the operator =20
> community. Operators need to devote time to IETF to make the work in =20
> the IETF most relevant to the operators needs.
Yes, and this has always been an acute problem as long as
I've been around. People have day (night, weekend
jobs). Co-location of the meetings seems a possible way
to start attacking one aspect that problem, with the
understanding that perhaps travel isn't the biggest of
the problems, but it is a non-trivial issue for many of
us.=20
Thanks for the great comments.
Dave
=09
--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD8lSeORgD1qCZ2KcRAk9mAJ9tger+fXVyEBxQF+C6Kt05N/trsQCfVKMZ
rAsFHt0rhtU8E6+TpcdT8eY=
=psMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--
