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: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