Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> > Victory). ;-)  I haven't bothered to go in years....
>
> If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group for
> being full of vendors.
>
> Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
> at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
> That would be how change is brought about in a participative organisation,
> no? :)
>
> Adrian

        Operator participation in IETF has been a problem for at least
        18 years.  I remember a fairly large dustup w/ John Curran and 
        Scott Bradner over why the OPS area was so lacking in actual 
        operators at the Columbus IETF.  Its never gotten any better.

        IETF used to be populated by developers and visionaries (grad students
        with lofty ideas).   Once commercialization set in (they graduated
        and got jobs)  their  funding sources changed from government grants
        to salaries.   And management took a more active role.  the outcome
        is that vendors now control much of the IETF participation and indirectly
        control IETF output.

        just my 0.02 from the cheap seats.

--bill