Re: the iab simplifies internet architecture!

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

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 07:39:09AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> None that I have spoken with. What I hear continually is that people  
> would like operational viewpoints on what they're doing and are  
> concerned at the fact that operators don't involve themselves in IETF  
> discussions.

        Agreed, but it is pretty clear that serious
        communication/image/respect/etc challenges remain. That
        is why the current IAB took a step, albeit a small step,
        towards trying to change that by opening up the
        communication channels a bit. As I seem to become fond of
        saying, "its a first step, but you have to start
        somewhere".   

        I'm hoping (and pushing) that we keep moving in this
        direction. As always, we can all educate each other a
        bit, and some of that happened at the NANOG BOF. However,
        much more is needed. To that end, I've applied for a slot
        at APRICOT for the IAB so we can keep what momentum we
        gained from the NANOG BOF going.   

        Finally, if folks have suggestions as to how to make these 
        (communication) channels more useful, work better, etc
        (including suggestions for issues you'd like to talk to
        the IAB about or hear the IAB talk about), please let me
        know.   

        Dave

n Nov 11, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
> opinion of talking to us operators.

Attachment: _bin
Description: