Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:56:42 +0100

Harald & Michael,

It's *getting* worse !  

A few years ago one operator was prepared to fund about 20 individuals to participate in the IETF;  now that's reduced to about 5, with no guarantee that such a level will be sustained.

This is not just about the downturn in the industry.  Real problems that operators have are not being addressed by the IETF.  If the IETF won't address my concerns, and if I have to go to the OMA to meet my requirements for application protocols, for example, that's where I'll go.

You may say "That's fine".  OK, if that's the policy.  But, then, don't be surprised if it happens !

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Exact

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 15 October 2003 08:35
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission 

It is a bad thing.
But we saw in Vienna that the exodus is far from complete yet. So it could 
be worse....

--On 14. oktober 2003 21:37 -0300 Michael Richardson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
>     Harald> sort out which standards were actually needed.  As the field
> has     Harald> grown explosively, specialization has set in, and market
> pressures     Harald> have risen, there has been less and less operator
> participation in     Harald> the IETF.
>
>   I'm unclear if this documents thinks this is a good thing or a bad
> thing.   I think that it is a bad thing.
>
> ] Collecting stories about my dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/cjr/ |
> firewalls  [ ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON
> |net architect[ ] [email-masked]
> http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another
> NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [
>
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:22:32 +0200

--On 15. oktober 2003 09:56 +0100 [email-masked] wrote:

> Harald & Michael,
>
> It's *getting* worse !
>
> A few years ago one operator was prepared to fund about 20 individuals to
> participate in the IETF;  now that's reduced to about 5, with no
> guarantee that such a level will be sustained.
>
> This is not just about the downturn in the industry.  Real problems that
> operators have are not being addressed by the IETF.  If the IETF won't
> address my concerns, and if I have to go to the OMA to meet my
> requirements for application protocols, for example, that's where I'll go.
>

Graham,

thanks for your input!

it would be nice if you could name examples - since I'm not an operator and 
have rarely been on the forefront of the debates where you have been 
engaged, I don't have enough background to evaluate the experiences you're 
sharing.

In particular, I'm interested in hearing your requirements for applications 
protocols - both because I come from an applications background myself and 
believe the applications perspective to be important for the IETF, and 
because the proper boundary between "IETF work" and "application space 
work" is one of the long-simmering (long-festering?) debates that the IETF 
has never been able to come to resolution on.

                     Harald

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:57:40 -0700

Graham,

> A few years ago one operator was prepared to fund about 20 individuals to
participate in the IETF;  now that's reduced to about 5, with no guarantee
that such a level will be sustained.
operators have are not being addressed by the IETF.  If the IETF won't
address my concerns, and if I have to go to the OMA to meet my requirements
for application protocols, for example, that's where I'll go.

Can you cite an example? I am not aware of any case where a group of
operaters has come to the IETF with a proposal for an application protocol
and had the charter turned down at some point during the process of new work
startup (i.e. no BOF consensus or charter rejected at I* review).

> You may say "That's fine".  OK, if that's the policy.  But, then, don't be
surprised if it happens !

Well, personally, coming from an operator I don't think it is fine. Having
operators involved is important, but I don't think that it is just a matter
of how many people they send to IETFs. Operators need to take the initative
to start new work and contribute their perspective to ongoing work. And,
they need to contribute people to sit on Nomcom and otherwise be involved.
If an operator sends 20 people and they just sit in the audience, never
contribute to mailing lists, it doesn't help get the operator perspective
represented.

            jak

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:00:07 -0700

Harald -

So what does this remark say? simple it says that that the IETF and IESG are
both currently failing to provide lasting value in their processes and
deliverables.

Your problem as the IETF's  chair  and 'Sheppard's,  is that its just as
easy for 5 or 10 people to spin a group outside of the IETF - setup a
website and a PHPCollab posting site and viola - instant initiative
infrastructure. Really, its that easy, just add participants. The server can
be up in an hour. So if there is a real infrastructure that can compete with
the IETF's process and it comes in a can - then what do I get from the
IETF? - This is a serious question for you as the person responsible for
maintaining value in the IETF to answer... Got any ideas?

The point is that the IETF has competition from all over today and to insure
the continued value of its process and insured industry participation the
IETF needs to wake up and smell the coffee.  So Mr. Chair - what are you
going to do?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:56 AM
Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

Harald & Michael,

It's *getting* worse !

You may say "That's fine".  OK, if that's the policy.  But, then, don't be
surprised if it happens !

Regards,

Graham Travers

This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications
plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or
email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 15 October 2003 08:35
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

It is a bad thing.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:22:42 -0300

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I am also interesting in some examples.

<RANT>
I'm not generally considered an operator. I seem to be involved in network,
transport and security.  (I say "seem", because I don't recall making a
conscious decision to be...) 

But, I do run and deploy the systems that I build, and even run and co-own a 
small co-location facility in Ottawa. In fact, that's how I got into writing
security systems - as a small operator (a student, at the time) who needed
something done, and did it.

My impression is that part of the "gap" is because fewer operators are
actually doing development, and at the same time, we have more and more
"engineers" who are not operators. (I put engineer in quotes on purpose. I
seriously question their competency)   

For example, I point to people who post IDs to the mailing list (past the
deadline) because... they don't have a personal web site they can post it to
and give a pointer! 

Few in the IETF would consider "operating" a web site to be something that
makes you an "operator", but the in-ability for supposedly competent
engineers to even sign up at one of a zillion "free hosting" services, and
"operate" a web site has astonished me. Of course they don't design good
protocols- they seldom even use the ones already there.
</RANT>

] Collecting stories about my dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/cjr/ |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [