North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...

  • From: Christian Kuhtz
  • Date: Tue Feb 14 16:58:46 2006

On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:47 PM, David Meyer wrote:


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. :-/

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.

Best regards,