protocols that don't meet the need...
David Meyer
dmm at 1-4-5.net
Tue Feb 14 22:07:26 UTC 2006
Christian
> 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
us.
Thanks for the great comments.
Dave
-------------- 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/20060214/9f2a4d78/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list