On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:19 -0500
Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Jared
Mauch wrote:
<some-hat-on>
Would it be insane to have an IETF back-to-back with a NANOG?
</some-hat-on>
Probably, but it would be a good idea. :)
I have no idea how the IETF agenda is set, but that may be part of
the trick. I suspect network operators care a lot about protocols
at lower layers in the stack, and less and less at higher levels
in the stack.
SeND, DHCP, the RA stuff are all very important to us; some new
header field in HTTP or IMAP much less so. Since IETF is usually
5 days, it would be nice if that lower level stuff could be adjacent
to NANOG.
The IETF agenda isn't set that way -- not even close...
The big problem I see is that after a week of IETF, I'm *completely*
fried. It's also just a very long time to be away from my family.
I fully agree. There is no time at any IETF meeting (at least for me,
FWIW) to go to other
meetings.
Note that IETF agenda times are set out some time into the future to
avoid conflicts with IEEE 802.1 and other bodies :
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
If you want to pick a date and make a proposal, send it to Ray
Pelletier and / or the IAOC
i...@ietf.org
i...@ietf.org
Regards
Marshall
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
