[Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

Joe Provo nanog-fut at rsuc.gweep.net
Wed Apr 8 21:14:25 UTC 2009

Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out 
an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is 
reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points 
raised so far (both on-list and off):

- In addition to the v6 hour, there have been more recently
  proposed experiments that didn't come to fruition.  Part of 
  the intent here is to provide a fair standard to apply to such 
  proposals, and set a level of expectation for preparadeness on 
  the part of the proposer.  
- Nothing in this suggested policy precludes additional, parallel
  networks.  The focus is what will and will not be considered
  for the conference network.  WRT opt-in, note the "voluntary
  not compulsary" bullet.
- Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and 
  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk 
  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the 
  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment 
  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make 
  both more explict.
- This started out as more general principles and consciously 
  avoided attemtps to dictate the future (encoding specific VLANs
  or SSIDs, address space, etc), but it was observed that without 
  setting minimum expectations the per-meeting conference engineering 
  teams would be spending time spinning their wheels on something 
  which may not come together.
- Integration with the program was intended to be covered by 
  "SC will evaluate submission, conferring as needed with the
  Program Committee[...]" and "Have clear measurement [...]
  related in a lightning talk submission, if not full presentation."
  The draft will be updated to make this intent more clear.



             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list