> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Given that the IESG ignored inputs from some number of > people noting that the RFC in question was actually deployed > [1], it seems doubtful that it would be worthwhile for any of > the operators who have deployed NAT+PT to travel to an IETF > for the purpose of commenting in person. Did the mountain come even for Muhammad? It seems to me that there is an unhelpful attitude in the IETF that it is the maypole around which the rest of the Internet must dance. If we want to be influential we have to accept the fact that there are other stakeholders involved and we must have a strategy for influencing them if our work is to be deployed. > More than one person in the operator community now > refers to the "IVTF" rather than IETF, because of the > perception that the large vendors and professional > standards-goers dominate IETF processes and IESG decisions > and that network operators [2] are mostly ignored. I think that's off the mark. There are some large vendors but the individuals who attend are not necessarily able to influence their employer and there are many significant stakeholders that are not present. Some people attend the IETF to win battles they have already lost at home. Case in point: NAT PT, it can hardly escape notice that many vociferous NAT-PT opponents are employed by a company that makes a NAT-PT product. Presumably the marketting side of the company put the feature in because they talk to their customers at the operators. > It seems a bit of hubris for one to insist that > operators must come to IETF given the history of IETF and > IESG ignoring many operator inputs for much of the past decade.[3] We have to go and talk to the operators, and much more. More importantly we have to listen to them. If an operator turns up at IETF there is no real opportunity for them to even put their case. The meeting is simply not structured in a way to facilitate that. I would suggest that the best way to lead deployment of IPv6 would be to hold a workshop and invite the IAB, the ADs of the affected areas, the operators, the vendors and whatever other stakeholders exist or might be able to evangelize. At the end of the workshop issue a press release endorsed by the likes of Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and co to the effect that it is believed that significant progress has been made on a deployment plan. > The main bit of operator input that has been undertaken > by IETF has been NetConf (basically standardising an > equivalent to the then already deployed, albeit then > proprietary, JunOS Script). That was done because of the > recommendation from the IAB Network Management Workshop held > in Reston earlier this decade (which itself was a bit of IAB > outreach, rather than IESG/IETF outreach). Rather than > demanding that operators come to IETF as if supplicants, > particularly given the history, some would prefer to see the > IETF/IESG engage in more outreach to the operational > community I agree in principle, but not that the IESG can do this. Clearly it is not going to happen if the job is given to the IESG given its current workload. Either this has to be done by the IAB or some new board. Giving the job to the IAB is most attractive in my view, talking and listening to outside parties would greatly enhance the influence of the IAB inside the IETF. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
