Hi Michael, On 04/12/2020 15:14, Ackermann, Michael wrote:
We (Enterprises) are not as involved as we should be in IETF, and that is our own problem/fault. What I think irritates people like Stephen,
I'm not irritated at all:-)
is that there have been situations where we finally try to get involved and provide input/use cases, etc., but at the 11th hour or after the ship has pretty much sailed.
Getting involved late is just something that happens when one first gets involved in any new thing so is entirely ok. If I was irritated (and I'm still not:-), what would have caused that would be a claim that someone somehow represents all "Enterprises" and that nobody else has a clue what may be needed for such networks. I don't buy that at all and I guess never will, because it just isn't correct. Cheers, S.
So as you say Deborah, I very much want to get more Enterprises involved in IETF initiatives, but beyond that, being involved up front in the process (perhaps even making positive contributions OMG), rather than only whining about deployment/operational issues on the back end. (or explaining why they exist, which is essentially what I was doing on this issue ☹). How to accomplish this is a challenge and I think that is what Barbara suggested taking off to the other list.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
