Randy, Warren,
One (IMO) good idea that was mentioned recently (sorry, I cannot
remember by whom, may have been Jim Martin) was for someone from the
IETF to present a short summary of interesting work at NOG meetings.
this has been done many times. imiho, it has not stirred up much useful
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments/proposals, I always know that your
discussions are important for my progress in IETF. I reply some
comments as below,
On 5/30/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Jari,
Inspired by two of your recent notes and Dave Crocker's long
one last weekend
John,
On 05/30/2013 08:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
irrelevant. If there is a major vendor design presence in a
region, then we should be very concerned if we don't have
significant presence from that region in the IETF as well. But,
if the vendor presence is limited to marketing, sales,
melinda,
i assure you that operations being 'owned' by vendors is not restricted
to the geographically isolated. one small example. i was asked to
consult on a global deployment by a global fortune whatever company
whose name you would all recognize. there was no real management, and
the
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:36 +0200 Fernando Gont
fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
if the vendor presence is limited to marketing, sales, and
perhaps implementation, then, if that is a problem, it is one
that doesn't lie easily within IETF scope... and probably
shouldn't.
Do open source
On May 30, 2013, at 8:37 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:31 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
The below is not a direct response to John, it is more my
general views on IETF interaction with operators.
So, I've been a long time
Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ -- Documented best practices for Engineers by
Engineers
Some more
(I think what Warren, Randy, and others have to say is more
relevant to most of this than my opinion - unless you count a
handful of end networks with VPN connections among a subset of
them, I haven't had either ops responsibility or even direct or
indirect management responsibility for those who
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly,
flip a switch or
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ --
Warren Kumari wrote:
Unfortunately the was a bad case of creeping featuritis and we got:
A new, and unfortunately very complex way of resolving L2 addresses.
You may use ARP (and DHCP) with IPv6.
Extension headers that make it so you cannot actually forward
packets in modern hardware
(
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
minimal change and cost,
John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, various applications folks within the IETF have
pointed out repeatedly that any approach that assigns multiple
addresses, associated with different networks and different
policies and properties, either requires the applications to
understand those policies,
Jari,
Inspired by two of your recent notes and Dave Crocker's long
one last weekend (with which I almost completely agree should
that be notable), let me make a few observations:
(1) To the extent to which the IETF's focus is on protocols that
we hope vendors and others (producers in the
(2) As far as I can tell, the operators in most regions are
generally well represented in, and collaborate using, the
various *NOGs.
the first derivative is generally positive. a lot of fluff, machismo,
and posturing, but that seems to come with any endeavor involving us
funny monkeys.
We
Forwarding a discussion that started offlist for operational
reasons with permission. I've tried to elide some irrelevant
material; I hope that, if Eliot thinks it was relevant after
all, he will add it back in once he gets to an appropriate
machine.
--On Thursday, May 30, 2013 09:20 -0400 John
On May 30, 2013, at 1:24 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Forwarding a discussion that started offlist for operational
reasons with permission. I've tried to elide some irrelevant
material; I hope that, if Eliot thinks it was relevant after
all, he will add it back in once he
--On Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:31 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
The below is not a direct response to John, it is more my
general views on IETF interaction with operators.
So, I've been a long time participant in some NOG's and still
(perhaps incorrectly) view myself as an
Hi,
This thread is helpful to me.
This is somewhat of a vicious cycle -- operators participate
less, and so the IETF understands less about how their
networks run. This leads to solutions that don't understand
the real world, and so operators lose faith/interest in IETF,
and
On 5/30/13 4:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
ultimately call the IETF's legitimacy and long-term future into
question. As you suggest, we may have good vendor participation
but the operators are ultimately the folks who pay the vendor's
bills.
Here in Alaska was the first time I'd worked in an
Hi -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
...
But who pays the operators' bills, and do we need to encourage participation
at
that level as well?
Participation as:
RFC uptake:
- using something based on an RFC?
- deploying something based on an RFC?
-
Melinda Shore, all at sea:
Here in Alaska was the first time I'd worked in an environment
that had technologists at a considerably less than elite skill
level, and I'd previously had no idea the extent to which
average operators/data centers rely on vendors (worse: VARs
and consultants) to
On 5/30/13 6:21 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
You'd love the Pacific.
Few IETFers get exposed to these kinds of environments.
I'd had no idea. The point here isn't to derogate techies
working in this kind of environment, but that because the
sorts of informal technology and skills transfer
On May 30, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/13 4:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
ultimately call the IETF's legitimacy and long-term future into
question. As you suggest, we may have good vendor participation
but the operators are ultimately the folks who
Your experience and ideas on how to start-out are useful.
On 27 May 2013 16:13, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
LCD?
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago, was
to look over the list of areas and working groups (
http://tools.ietf.org/area/ ) and find out
Sorry, I meant LCD.
Nthabiseng Pule
On 27 May 2013, at 5:48 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
LCD?
LDC, Less Developed Country, what used to be called the third world, now that
the second has been bought by the first.
Regards,
John
On 5/26/13 9:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
addressing any of these.
I don't, either. However,
Given that the incremental cost to the
participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
the order of a
Hi John,
I agree and I will add, that What makes that participant continue to
volunteer, or even witness/read the ietf work process? Making someone
interested to do something freely is not an easy task. The difficulty
is how to make that individual participate with value, he/she may need
help to
John,
Good summary.
I would add a steep learning-curve to start participating. It takes
time to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts
for I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to
catch-up in knowing the topic in
On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea. It could be interesting to try
to formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify
as a functional specification.
Translation?
Also, it would be important that the local people/helpers could do an
introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send comments in the remote
participation, to the list, what's a WG etc. It may sound a bit bureaucratic,
but if we want to have these remote people
Add: like many organizations around the world including the USA, they don't
think it's worth the huge effort to develop standards when they can rely on
others to do so well enough for their needs.
John,
* People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
an open participation model
* People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
participating
* People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
overt disagreement
* People
as,
I am new to the IETF. I would like to contribute any way I can, but the
learning curve seems steep indeed. I am from an LCD country. I have the
necessary resources but I just don't know where to start.
Some guidance would be welcome. I am reading on stuff and hope that one day I
will be
Ditto.
On 27 May 2013 14:33, Nthabiseng Pule np...@lca.org.ls wrote:
as,
I am new to the IETF. I would like to contribute any way I can, but the
learning curve seems steep indeed. I am from an LCD country. I have the
necessary resources but I just don't know where to start.
Some
LCD?
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago, was to
look over the list of areas and working groups ( http://tools.ietf.org/area/ )
and find out which of them are working on something that is of interest to me.
In my case it was mostly the security area, and the
On 5/27/2013 4:13 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago,
One might wish for a document that gives such guidance to folk who are
new to the IETF.
And indeed...
The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering
Task
Hola Arturo,
At 05:17 27-05-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
Also, it would be important that the local people/helpers
could do an introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send
comments in the remote participation, to the list, what's a WG etc.
It may sound a bit bureaucratic, but if we
Hi,
About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea. It could be interesting to
try to formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to
qualify as a functional specification. The easy part is specifying
audio/video
On May 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/27/2013 4:13 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago,
One might wish for a document that gives such guidance to folk who are new to
the IETF.
And indeed...
Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have
interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes
SHOULD learn English.
-Jorge
On May 27, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Translation?
Also, it would be
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
LCD?
LDC, Less Developed Country, what used to be called the third world, now
that the second has been bought by the first.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
I dropped the toothpaste, said Tom, crestfallenly.
Hi Jari,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
John,
* People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
an open participation model
* People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
participating
* People are
On 5/27/13 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
Joel Jaeggli mentioned that a regional NOG is not fertile ground for new
IETF participants. Is LACNOG fertile ground for new IETF participants?
I guess so.
We have doing some efforts in the past and we are planning to do more.
You will see
Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that
have interest to participate in this type of international forums and
processes SHOULD learn English.
Another barrier.
Anyway we are talking about remote participation only.
You guys would know better
On 5/27/13 12:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have
interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes
SHOULD learn English.
-Jorge
Another barrier.
Anyway we are talking about
The idea that I had for this remote participation hub was to break the
ice. I saw no problem to provide some facilities to newcomers are more
comfortable. Perhaps, later that would encourage them to improve their
English and participate.
But these are just ideas.
.as
On
On Sun, 26 May 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It also seems unlikely to me that that million dollars is otherwise
available.
I like the idea of setting up a remote participation center (doubly-
so if one or more very experienced IETFers who spoke the local language
could be on-site) but it
I would prefer that people come to the IETF because they have a problem and
they are looking for ways to solve it ... as opposed to wanting to work
with the IETF for some reason and looking for something the IETF wants
them to work on. The former feels like engineering, the latter like
I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
* People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
an open participation model
* People don't read and write English well enough to be
52 matches
Mail list logo
