North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
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