Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
| I don't know | if operators are finding the IETF less useful The IETF has at least since CIDRD not really been on the best of terms with operators. It is very clear that there is essentially no conversation happening between operators and the IPNGWG, for example, and there are other working groups which are nearly as out-of-touch with operators' realities. Moreover, the IESG and the IAB have generally also been bereft of much operator input. Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect". The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too. Sean.
Sean;
Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect".
The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who have to explain to our investors why they are wrong. That takes work too.
I*? I'm afraid the history is that ISO started hearing real world voices only long after it has lost the war against the reality. Well, you can try, as now may be long after IPv6 has lost the war against the reality. Masataka Ohta
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Sean;
[...] I'm not sure of the proper attribution here...
and ideally help make the IETF a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect".
Well, you can try, as now may be long after IPv6 has lost the war against the reality.
Masataka Ohta
Two very good points here. I raised the relevance issue awhile back with the IETF and was not greeted kindly. There are many more organizations than just NANOG pondering the relevance aspect. There are also folks, including myself and others, within the IETF trying to work with the relevance aspect which is a genuine problem in many areas. One major issue that I haven't taken the battle up yet to do is the criteria for the selection of specific "operational experience" that appears to be a requirement for advancement of a draft to any true status. It reminds me greatly of the classic IEEE Comsoc article titled "Of Holy Wars and Ivory Towers" ca. 1981. One can also note that IEEE Globecom is presenting many formal papers directly in the IETF area shortly before IETF in San Diego. -Nathan Lane
participants (3)
-
Masataka Ohta -
Nathan Lane -
smd＠clock.org