epg at merit.edu
Fri Dec 23 16:49:33 UTC 1994
The week after IETF, my mailbox somehow went south, and I have
just recovered most of it - except Dec 12-16. So, my apologies if
folks have continued this discussion and I have missed something
>Matt Mathis writes:
> I agree w/ Vince Fuller - We need a stronger picture of the agenda and intended
I have had a brief discussion with Scott Bradner (one of the co-chairs)
about the conference, and he stated that this Conference was
proposed as a one-time meeting which would bring the policy
and the technical folks together. The hope was that the outcome
would be some recommendations which could be forwarded to
the Internet community. My understanding was that Scott and
Bill Schrader (the other co-chair) were still deciding on the
actual agenda and details of the conference.
In a note from Tony, he indicates that the idea is to get all the
principal parties together to develop some degree of cross-
fertilization, common approaches, and a little cohesion. In
addition, since he had heard that NANOG planned their winter
meeting for February (didn't realize we already had a host),
they set their meeting for that time frame.
> However, the worse possible outcome would be for half of us to go to one, and
> half to go to the other. Especially since this precisely cancels the charges
> of both meetings. (I assume the agenda and intended audience overlap, and that
> few people could go to both).
The International Internet Operations Conference, has a registration
scheme which favors limiting attendance per organization:
"the first two participants from the same organization are
$300 each; additional participants from the same organization are
$500 each. If the goal is to have one technical representative
and one managerial representative, that is different than
the NANOG representation. We typically have two or more members
of an organization's technical staff in attendance.
> Are there people who already hold tickets to NANOG?
Several individuals have indicated that they already have made
plans for the Boulder meeting (5 people) - not including the
Westnet and NCAR folks.
> Could we/NCAR invite ISOC to attend the already scheduled NANOG?
Yes, I think that this is a reasonable solution. After all the
NANOG meeting is open to all comers.
>How many non NA nets are not represented at NANOG?
Off the top of my head, Dante, RIPE NCC, STUPI, IIJ are the non-
North American attendees at the NANOG meetings.
>Would having non-operators present diminish NANOG's effectiveness by making
>people less candid about their own problems? Can real problems be addressed
>at all with customers present?
Since NANOG has an open membership policy, we don't categorize
the attendees (even though I did in a statement above.)
>How about just a delegation from ISOC? The iesg? The IAB?
Again, we have open membership. In addition, we had agreed
to meet as long as it folks were interested in meeting.
The invitation does not change any of that. The invitation
is to host the NANOG meeting prior to the ISOC Conference,
so that folks who are going to attend the conference can
make just one trip and get two meetings.
>I feel strongly that the NANOG community should come to a consensus, and in a
>show of unity, act on it as a block. Lets keep an open mind, but agree to
>commit before Christmas (6+ weeks before NANOG).
My mail has Boulder edging San Diego as the location for the Feb
meeting. But, I may have lost some mail due to mailbox problems.
>BTW: my personal feeling is that NANOG can not afford to de-focus by meeting
>under an external agenda at any time soon. Best would be to have one meeting
>and allocate some time to address the ISOC issues. It also feels to me like
>there may be a serious miss understanding - although the title seems to be
>addressed to NANOG and friends, the content looks more like something our
>management should attend.
>I can't imagine much more cooperation at the NANOG level, unless we all come
>to work for the same employer. :-)
Many of the responses have requested more information about the
confernece in San Diego so as to decide whether it is something
that those individuals would choose to attend. Perhaps
Tony Rutkowski would be willing to respond to this list
with a more detailed agenda. From the small number of responses
on this topic my current inclination is to stick with the
original plan for the Boulder meeting (that is NANOG will
meet at the time and place previously agreed upon).
Tony, Scott, or Bill, perhaps you could shed some further light
on the agenda of the conference in San Diego. Thanks.
More information about the NANOG