On May 30, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 5/30/13 4:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
ultimately call the IETF's legitimacy and long-term future into
question. As you suggest, we may have good vendor participation
but the operators are ultimately the folks who pay the vendor's
bills.
Here in Alaska was the first time I'd worked in an environment
that had technologists at a considerably less than elite skill
level, and I'd previously had no idea the extent to which
average operators/data centers rely on vendors (worse: VARs
and consultants) to solve their technical problems. The only
time I'd seen someone from an Alaskan operator participate in
anything to do with the IETF was when one person "voted" on
the transitional address space allocation. I think Warren is
correct to identify this as an issue with operator participation.
Perhaps we should be thinking about some alternative to
engaging operators by trying to get them to schlep to meetings.
Something along the lines of a liaison process or creating
a pipeline between us and NOGs.
Dear Melinda,
Perhaps something to also consider is that many installations operate at
minimal compliance levels even within advanced regions. The IETF is blessed
with many very smart people (at least from my perspective) who also seem overly
optimistic of the impact of non-normative language on outcome. Specifications
provide better outcomes when function is ensured at minimal levels. In other
words, it is better not to make assumptions.
Regards,
Douglas Otis