On May 30, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/30/13 4:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> ultimately call the IETF's legitimacy and long-term future into >> question. As you suggest, we may have good vendor participation >> but the operators are ultimately the folks who pay the vendor's >> bills. > > Here in Alaska was the first time I'd worked in an environment > that had technologists at a considerably less than elite skill > level, and I'd previously had no idea the extent to which > average operators/data centers rely on vendors (worse: VARs > and consultants) to solve their technical problems. The only > time I'd seen someone from an Alaskan operator participate in > anything to do with the IETF was when one person "voted" on > the transitional address space allocation. I think Warren is > correct to identify this as an issue with operator participation. > > Perhaps we should be thinking about some alternative to > engaging operators by trying to get them to schlep to meetings. > Something along the lines of a liaison process or creating > a pipeline between us and NOGs. Dear Melinda, Perhaps something to also consider is that many installations operate at minimal compliance levels even within advanced regions. The IETF is blessed with many very smart people (at least from my perspective) who also seem overly optimistic of the impact of non-normative language on outcome. Specifications provide better outcomes when function is ensured at minimal levels. In other words, it is better not to make assumptions. Regards, Douglas Otis