[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)



On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:28:58AM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>> Maybe we can fix this by:
>>
>> a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
>> b) deciding which issues interest them
>> c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing working groups
>>
>> To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
>
> I don't think it's that simple, sadly. ?I'll no doubt get flamed
> by the 5 people on NANOG that also participate in the IETF in a
> regular basis, but the reality is most operators don't want to sit
> through multi-year protocol devopment work, or have much of anything
> to do with "pie in the sky" ideas.
>
> The IETF can, should, and does do both of those things today. ?Where the
> friction occurs is there is no good place to loop the operators back in,
> so they are often ?kicked out, discouraged, or just uninterested on the
> front end (we're going to go play with new ideas kids!) and then not
> brought back in (it's ready for deployment, wait, why are no operators
> interested).
>
> So it's not that individual issues are of interest to operators (outside
> of the IETF OPS area, which is a special case), it's that the process
> needs work.
>
> I'll pick on LISP as an example, since many operators are at least
> aware of it. ?Some operators have said we need a locator and identifier
> split. ?Interesting feedback. ?The IETF has gone off and started
> playing in the sandbox, trying to figure out how to make that go.
> Several years of coding have occured, a bunch of proof of concept
> testing is going on. ?Even many of the operators who wanted such a spit
> are not really interested in following the details of the work right
> now. ?Of course, if you are, you can, I'm not advocating any exclusions.
>

W.R.T. to LISP,  in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
"the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
Internet or solves any specific problem well.

The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture" is going to LISP,
and it likely will not / cannot.  My expectation is that LISP will go
away as quickly as it came.

Cameron

> But there is no roadmap in the IETF process now for LISP that says
> "We've got this 90% baked, we need to circulate a draft to the NANOG
> mailing list, request operator comments, and actively solicit operators
> to participate in the expanded test network". ?We need that mechanism to
> tell folks "hey, it's real enough your operational feedback is now
> useful" and "come test our new idea".
>
> Today the IETF just finishes their work, "tosses it over the wall" and
> hopes for the best. ?Generally it's not 100%, and vendors make
> propretary changes to the standards slowly over time to meet the needs
> of operators. ?It would be far better if there was at least one round of
> "ask the operators" and incorproate feedback before it went over the
> wall, and in paricular before working groups disbanded.
>
> In short, make it easy for the operators to participate at the right
> time in the process. ?It will be better for everyone!
>
> --
> ? ? ? Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> ? ? ? ?PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>
>