Operator participation

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 15 23:25:34 CEST 2003


The issue is one of whether the participants represent their own interests
or those of the sponsor and how the sponsor itself becomes the focal point
for an initiative. The intent is not to build "Joe's protocol" and Joe was
sponsored by Widget Co, the intent is to have Widget Co's Protocol run
through the IETF and this is a core reversal of the focus of the
organization which was setup along the lines of an academic standards
process - it supported the individual researcher as an individual - and
there is nothing wrong with this, its just that the other side of the coin
needs representation too.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Rosen" <erosen at cisco.com>
To: <graham.travers at bt.com>
Cc: <harald at alvestrand.no>; <mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:50 AM
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