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

                

Attachment: pgpqxxBWZHWN3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to