Thanks Toerless, I agree we need more interaction between experts, and I will add also we need interaction with directors.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 3:34 PM Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:54:57PM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > > path exploration? but consider the shadow pricing... > > > > Just something semi-formal where we can meet regularly. But first, > please lets articuulate the problem very clearly. And bring operators in so > they can confirm the problem that researchers are stating are real problems > that need solving. > > I actually would love to just have a standing forum to better bring > routing researchers > together with industrial routing experts. IMHO, there are: Academic experts, Industry experts, and Research experts, each engineer_expert has their methods, skills and experiences, some ietf_participants have the three experience and some don't, however, we need in IETF to have all to discuss together in all IETF WGs. Aka: not focussed on a specific issue > (as Tony's past RRG instance). E.g.: where researcher can ask questions to > the experts, or propose > research and ask if/how this is useful to the industry, and where industry > folks can > ask for researchers to look into specific issues (i think there are for > example a lot of > simulations to investigate behaviors that we'd like to have from the > undustry). > Researchers should be engineering_experts, in IETF we are not Teaching we are Working like any company that has research workers and research experts. > Not sure if "Research Group" is the right name for this. I think it would > be a lot > closer to the SIG concept ( > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/iesg/specialinterestgroups), > except that that concept was built and specified around interaction > between IETF > and operational considerations of a specific community. Not on bringing > more researchers > back to the IETF. > Yes IETF groups has separated Research Group (RG) drafts and Working Group (WG) drafts, but still IETF does not separate participants or engineering_experts. Is there an IETF_RFC that states that IETF WG participants are only industry_experts? > We do have a subset of what i think such an RRG would do in rtgwg - > researchers bring ideas - > and then they most often figure out that they can only proceed when they > throw themselves > fully into the RFC process (which most of them cannot/wantnot do). And > from what i > understand even this is not always welcome by rtgwg, because it does take > a significant > amount of time that folks feel should better be spent on actual WG > deliverables. > > Of course, i am mostly interested in the ietf->research direction, e.g.: > where the IETF > community can better raise the questions of interest to be researched > because the way i > see it, there is no forum whatsover for this part. > All companies need excellent planning of products that need engineering_research_experts, so there is a need for working with all experts together with engineering_directions, not industry direction, not academic direction and not research direction. AB
