mailing list archives
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch () corp earthlink net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:55:54 -0500
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:47 PM, David Meyer wrote:
I am not going to speak for the IETF, but why would they? Their
already open, and to be globally fair the proposed coordinators
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
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.
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Daniel Roesen (Feb 15)