Operator participation
graham.travers at bt.com
graham.travers at bt.com
Wed Oct 15 16:01:02 CEST 2003
Eric,
You may be right. I wasn't thinking of any "set" of operators, though; just of my own requirements. I'm not qualified to say what other operators want.
Regards,
Graham Travers
International Standards Manager
BT Exact
e-mail: graham.travers at bt.com
tel: +44(0) 1359 235086
mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536
fax: +44(0) 1359 235087
HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK
BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no. 1800000
This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen at cisco.com]
Sent: 15 October 2003 14:51
To: Travers,G,Graham,XVT TRAVERG R
Cc: harald at alvestrand.no; mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca;
problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: Operator participation
This business about there not being enough operator participation is a lot
of baloney.
The reasons some operators think that there isn't enough operator
participation are (a) different sets of operators inhabit different WGs, and
(b) operators tend to ignore the input of other operators who may disagree
with them.
If you look, e.g., at the main IETF list, at the routing-discussion list, at
the idr list, etc., you'll see one class of operator. If you look at the
PWE3 list, the MPLS list, the CCAMP list, the L3VPN list, the L2VPN list,
etc., you'll see an entirely different class. And within the latter lists,
there are large disagreements about very fundamental principles. For some
reason, each group denies the existence of the others.
Of course, when any particular operator fails to achieve consensus for his
preferred solution, the problem is perceived as "not enough operator
input".
I think the set of operators that Harald is thinking of would be aghast at
the proposals of the set of operators that Graham is thinking of.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list