Home page logo

nanog logo nanog 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 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,

  By Date           By Thread  

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