IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[graham.travers at bt.com]

James,

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  The phrase about applications protocols was an hypothetical case, not an actual occurrence.  

See my follow-up posting for details of attempts to get work initiated.


	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: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: 15 October 2003 16:58
To: Travers,G,Graham,XVT TRAVERG R; harald at alvestrand.no;
mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission 


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