protocols that don't meet the need...

Tue Feb 14 21:47:31 UTC 2006

	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).  

	So (and again, not speaking for the IAB), my perspective
	is that we really need your insight and perspectives,
	more generally, your help in solving some of the
	difficult problems before us (a viable routing and
	addressing architecture for IPv6 comes to mind). 

	All of that being said, I would be glad to facilitate
	with the IETF in any way I can. Perhaps someone from the
	NANOG PC/SC or Merit can contact me offline and we can
	look at with our options are. Any takers?

	Dave


> 
> Tony 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eastgard, Tom [mailto:tom.eastgard at boeing.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:01 PM
> > To: Tony Hain; nanog at merit.edu
> > Subject: RE: protocols that don't meet the need...
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM
> > > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > > Subject: protocols that don't meet the need...
> > >
> > >
> > > A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect
> > > between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol
> > > development to run open-loop.
> > >
> > > Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not
> > > try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but
> > > within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about
> > > ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
> > > This will mean that people who regularly attend both will
> > > have overlap issues, but if one meeting every year or two is
> > > joint there is an opportunity for those who can't justify the
> > > extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close
> > > the loop on protocol design.
> > 
> > Would it make sense to ask IETF to provide a focal or coordinate(s?) to
> > NANOG who would host a BOF(s?) on IETF issues --- not to debate, explain
> > or
> > work them but to board the issues and concerns of the operating community?
> > Point being to provide a lightly structured and cost effective mechanism
> > for
> > operators to give feedback without having to attend three more meetings
> > per
> > year?
> > 
> > T. Eastgard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060214/6fa29fbf/attachment.sig>