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

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>]

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