protocols that don't meet the need...

David Meyer dmm at
Tue Feb 14 22:07:26 UTC 2006


> 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

	Thanks for the great comments.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list