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

[David Meyer <dmm () 1-4-5 net>]

        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).  

        So (and again, not speaking for the IAB), my perspective
        is that we really need your insight and perspectives,
        more generally, your help in solving some of the
        difficult problems before us (a viable routing and
        addressing architecture for IPv6 comes to mind). 

        All of that being said, I would be glad to facilitate
        with the IETF in any way I can. Perhaps someone from the
        NANOG PC/SC or Merit can contact me offline and we can
        look at with our options are. Any takers?

        Dave





> Tony 
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eastgard, Tom [mailto:tom.eastgard () boeing com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:01 PM
> > To: Tony Hain; nanog () merit edu
> > Subject: RE: protocols that don't meet the need...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf () tndh net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM
> > > To: nanog () merit edu
> > > Subject: protocols that don't meet the need...
> > >
> > >
> > > A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect
> > > between the NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol
> > > development to run open-loop.
> > >
> > > Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not
> > > try to synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but
> > > within a reasonable distance of each other so the issue about
> > > ROI for the trip can be mitigated.
> > > This will mean that people who regularly attend both will
> > > have overlap issues, but if one meeting every year or two is
> > > joint there is an opportunity for those who can't justify the
> > > extra trips to at least have some feedback to try and close
> > > the loop on protocol design.
> >
> > Would it make sense to ask IETF to provide a focal or coordinate(s?) to
> > NANOG who would host a BOF(s?) on IETF issues --- not to debate, explain
> > or
> > work them but to board the issues and concerns of the operating community?
> > Point being to provide a lightly structured and cost effective mechanism
> > for
> > operators to give feedback without having to attend three more meetings
> > per
> > year?
> >
> > T. Eastgard

Attachment: _bin
Description: