On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:06 AM, t.petch wrote: > So the onus is on operators to turn their good business reasons into > engineering problems, eg as a requirements RFC, that the IETF will then solve.
Thanks. I gather the operators have gotten a lot of bashing from IETF participants in the past; I'm sorry for that, and apologize if I was involved. What I see in the present, and specifically in this thread and similar threads in v6ops and other places, is the reverse: operator bashing of the IETF. Vendors, generally speaking, are not interested in building castles in the sky. They are interested in solving customer problems, which is to say creating solutions - products and features - that operators are interested in buying. Operators are interested in how the solutions work, but in general are far more interested in how they can be used to solve the business problems you speak of. If there is a single reason that vendors are more obvious in the IETF (which I will argue is the case, not that they are the only ones present), it is that the IETF is about building solutions, and therefore very much the domain of people that make products and features, just as the *NOGs are very much the domain of people that use those solutions. To that end, the IETF has since the beginning been a place where customer and vendor meet and write - academic research, vendors, and enterprise, access, and transit network operators. I can point to RFC and RFC that I have written and that others have written that have combined operational, vendor, and researcher authorship. When any person in any of those camps shows disrespect toward another, he says more about himself than about the party or camp he is disrespecting. If I may make a humble request - could we get back to work, please? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
