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 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
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/ --
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
