> >>Ops folks need to participate in the IETF.
> >because they want to sell what? clue? seems unmarketable.
>
> So that they can affect the protocols that are going to be implemented
> at a stage where they can still be modified to suit their needs,
> scenarios, requirements, etc.
>
> Options for changing the protocols are somewhat more limited (though
> not zero) when the specs and code (those that don't address the needs
> of a particular set of operators as-is, in any case) have already
> shipped.
i think ops folks have leverage in slightly different ways.
for commondity products, i expect you are right. for high end
products, i have found that when i ask a vendor for certain features,
and am willing to give them money, they tend to treat those feaure
requests with favor. features may or may not be reflected as IETF
or other SDO based specifications. in fact, recent events lead me
to believe that marketing groups from vendors, having done some
market/customer research, are presuring the engineeering groups to
push certain specs in the IETF. To have the actual customers show
up at the IETF and attempt to influence the specs directly will
put the engineering folks in a bind. ... believe the customer or
the marketing department? if a vendor ships code that does not meet
my needs or is harmful to my operations, i will either dump the
vendor or encourage them to build to my needs, regardless of the IETF.
--bill
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
