North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: protocols that don't meet the need...
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. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Eastgard, Tom [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:01 PM > To: Tony Hain; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RE: protocols that don't meet the need... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:email@example.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > > 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