Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: David Meyer <dmm () 1-4-5 net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:07:26 -0800

        Christian

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. :-/

        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  
community.  Operators need to devote time to IETF to make the work in  
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. 

        Thanks for the great comments.

        Dave

                

Attachment: _bin
Description:


  By Date           By Thread  

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