Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:08:23 -0800


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.

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eastgard, Tom [mailto:tom.eastgard () boeing com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Tony Hain; nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: protocols that don't meet the need...

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf () tndh net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: protocols that don't meet the need...


A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect
between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol
development to run open-loop.

Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not
try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but
within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about
ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
This will mean that people who regularly attend both will
have overlap issues, but if one meeting every year or two is
joint there is an opportunity for those who can't justify the
extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close
the loop on protocol design.

Would it make sense to ask IETF to provide a focal or coordinate(s?) to
NANOG who would host a BOF(s?) on IETF issues --- not to debate, explain
or
work them but to board the issues and concerns of the operating community?
Point being to provide a lightly structured and cost effective mechanism
for
operators to give feedback without having to attend three more meetings
per
year?

T. Eastgard


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]