On May 30, 2013, at 8:37 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:31 -0400 Warren Kumari > <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The below is not a direct response to John, it is more my >> general views on IETF interaction with operators. >> >> So, I've been a long time participant in some NOG's and still >> (perhaps incorrectly) view myself as an operator. I've spent >> significant time thinking about / discussing the issue of >> insufficient operator involvement in the IETF, trying to >> understand some of the causes. I've tried to summarize some of >> the operators' views below, and also some thoughts on how we >> might be able to work better / get more operator input. >> >> I think that at the root of much of the problem is cultural >> differences -- if we want more operator involvement / feedback >> there needs to be some attention paid (by both the operators >> and the IETF folk) to understanding these differences, and >> taking care to respect / accommodate the other side's culture. >> ... > > Warren, > > I think these notes are very helpful, at least insofar as I have > enough knowledge to evaluate. Some of your comments, > including... > >> This is somewhat of a vicious cycle -- operators participate >> less, and so the IETF understands less about how their >> networks run. This leads to solutions that don't understand >> the real world, and so operators lose faith/interest in IETF, >> and participate even less. > > 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. > >> ... > > As I told someone in another thread, I threw the NOG idea out as > an example without thinking through all of the possible > dynamics. It may be a terrible idea... or even a good idea that > won't work usefully. > > Part of that discussion included an observation that is probably > a corollary to one of yours. Many operators, either > individually or in groups, don't perceive that they have much > incentive to review IETF documents, much less get dragged into > the document development and consensus-forming process. Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice docs: http://www.ipbcop.org/ -- "Documented best practices for Engineers by Engineers" Some more info: http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hughes-BCOP.pdf There are BCOPs groups forming / within RIPE, NANOG, etc. This is still early days, but there have been discussions on how these should actually be published, etc. Various ideas have been floated, including bringing them to the IETF once baked, but the IETF stamp, a separate rfc-editor stream, simply publishing them under their own banner, etc. There is a NANOG meeting in New Orleans next week, where more discussions about this will be happening. If I make it to the session I'll try provide some feedback… Out of interest, who all from here will be attending NANOG? Who all attended RIPE in Dublin a few weeks ago? One (IMO) good idea that was mentioned recently (sorry, I cannot remember by whom, may have been Jim Martin) was for someone from the IETF to present a short summary of interesting work at NOG meetings. Someone "from the IETF" could collect short summaries from various WG's and present them at the various NOGs -- these should (IMO) be teaser style summaries, with the most interesting / dynamic bits highlighted. Ideally each WGs would provide a short, concise summary, and then the WG chairs (and folk who wear the smily faced dots on badges) could be designated as contact points, to help take input from operators, provide more detail, info on how you join the WG and participate, etc.. W > Certainly, we are unlikely to get very many people who are not > active IETF participants to do work for the good of the IETF. >> From that perspective, the very best incentive for reviewing a > document pre-standardization is the perceived risk that it will > make one's life worse if it goes through without input from your > perspective. If we throw documents over the wall without clear > motivation as to why people on the other side of the wall should > care,... well, that is as much a setup for failure as the model > in some other Internet bodies of soliciting input and then not > paying any attention to it. (In the latter case, there may be > organizational advantages to being able to say "we received NN > comments", but that does not apply to the IETF.) > > More generally, and borrowing (but altered somewhat) from > another thread: The real point I'm trying to make is that, if > our goal is really to do outreach to other communities to get > better input or reviews with broader perspective, then we better > start thinking more creatively than trying to persuade people > (and their organizations and budgets) to sign up for the IETF, > three extra week-long meetings a year, reading mailing lists > that contain dozens of messages a day on topics that may be of > no interest at all, etc. Instead, in your terminology, Warren, > we should be looking for ways in which they can do what > simultaneously benefits them, us, and the Internet as much as > possible within their own cultural framework. At least we need > to distinguish between the goals of "better input and review > from affected communities" and "increasing IETF active > participation". > > And, coming back to the supposed topic of this thread, dragging > circa 1000 people to a place that doesn't have a lot of > participation already is unlikely to accomplish either goal. > There may be, and probably are, perfectly good reasons why more > geographic diversity would be a good idea, but justifying doing > so on the basis that it is a good investment in growing > long-term active IETF participation just doesn't, IMO, fly. > > john > > > > > > > -- The duke had a mind that ticked like a clock and, like a clock, it regularly went cuckoo. -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)