IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[James Kempf]

Graham,

> It's *getting* worse !
>
> A few years ago one operator was prepared to fund about 20 individuals to
participate in the IETF;  now that's reduced to about 5, with no guarantee
that such a level will be sustained.
>
> This is not just about the downturn in the industry.  Real problems that
operators have are not being addressed by the IETF.  If the IETF won't
address my concerns, and if I have to go to the OMA to meet my requirements
for application protocols, for example, that's where I'll go.
>

Can you cite an example? I am not aware of any case where a group of
operaters has come to the IETF with a proposal for an application protocol
and had the charter turned down at some point during the process of new work
startup (i.e. no BOF consensus or charter rejected at I* review).



> You may say "That's fine".  OK, if that's the policy.  But, then, don't be
surprised if it happens !
>

Well, personally, coming from an operator I don't think it is fine. Having
operators involved is important, but I don't think that it is just a matter
of how many people they send to IETFs. Operators need to take the initative
to start new work and contribute their perspective to ongoing work. And,
they need to contribute people to sit on Nomcom and otherwise be involved.
If an operator sends 20 people and they just sit in the audience, never
contribute to mailing lists, it doesn't help get the operator perspective
represented.

            jak