Re: [IETF] Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



melinda,

i assure you that operations being 'owned' by vendors is not restricted
to the geographically isolated.  one small example.  i was asked to
consult on a global deployment by a global fortune whatever company
whose name you would all recognize.  there was no real management, and
the decisions were all done by a mid-level IT tech who was 'owned' by a
vendor.  when it was clear to me that i was there just to rubber-stamp
an ill-considered and ridiculously over-built solution, i walked.

otoh, i have worked in some pretty darned isolated environments where
the engineers worked very hard to get clue, participated in operator
fora, ...  come to the afnog workshops in two weeks.

> 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.

actually this has become a popular sport in some segments of the ietf
community.  a bunch of ietfers come to nog meetings and participate on
nog lists.  after they got whacked for talking down to operators (the
two classics i loved were multiple cases of explainng what the ietf was,
and then one arrogant ipv6 ivory tower bigot "the HD ration is a hard
problem because operators do not know what a logarithm is"), the
interaction has been very useful.  i know a highly reputed security
researcher who took a year sabbatical and actually worked in ops.  some
iesg members have been very persistent about gaining ops clue.  all in
all, there is much more transfer across the membrane in both directions
than there was 15 years ago.  of course, as most things in life, we
could do better.

randy




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]