Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:49:02 EST

In a message dated 11/13/2002 1:17:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> My concern is that a lot of the things being discussed here have very
> significant implications in the operational IP network world.  It would
> be better for everyone if some of the actual DISA IP network operations
> folks were participating here on their own -- instead of having the
> somewhat disconnected DISA Centre for Standards folks doing all/most
> of the interactions.  Based on my conversations with those folks, they
> seem to share the exact concerns that Bill, Sean, and other operators
> here share.
> 

[MAP] And being a contractor for DISA rather than an employee, I hope I can 
get away with partly agreeing with you about the apparent "disconnect" 
between DISA Center for Standards and the network operations people. But I'm 
sure this is no different than in any other large carrier/network operator. 
The two organizations have different short-term missions, while the long-term 
missions are the same.

If things being discussed/proposed have very significant implications in the 
operational IP network world, I would certainly like to hear about them. I 
don't profess to know a lot about the IP world, but I can assure you that I 
don't want to push for anything that would be extremely hard to do, since I 
realize that it is unlikely to ever be completed. But so far, it seems to me 
that the comments have consisted mostly of attacks on peoples' intentions or 
intelligence, rather than simply comments on particular technical aspects of 
what was being proposed. There have also been implications of a number of 
concerns which are unfounded since no one (that I know of) was actually 
proposing some of the things being objected to.

I remain hopeful that we can address specific technical concerns with actual 
proposals that have been made.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:41:49 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > realize that it is unlikely to ever be completed.

This is what we've all been telling you, over, and over, and over.

QoS was a fad for about eighteen months, several years ago.  It was
excruciatingly painful, had exactly the opposite effect that its
protagonists predicted, and wasted a huge amount of everyone's effort.
Thankfully, it's well behind us, and we have a functional network again.
Except that you're attempting to bring it back to life, and staggering
around under the weight of its decaying corpse, flapping its arms and
crowing "It MUST live again!"

Yes, trashing our networks with QoS again would have significant effects.

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:15:48 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 14:49 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] And being a contractor for DISA rather than an employee, I hope 
> I can get away with partly agreeing with you about the apparent 
> "disconnect" between DISA Center for Standards and the network 
> operations people. But I'm sure this is no different than in any other 
> large carrier/network operator. The two organizations have different 
> short-term missions, while the long-term missions are the same.

At @Home and at several other extant ISPs, it is the actual line 
network engineers
and network operations folks who are the ones participating in IETF.  
So the
"normal situation" IS actually different than at DISA, unfortunately.

> If things being discussed/proposed have very significant implications 
> in the operational IP network world, I would certainly like to hear 
> about them.

Gee whiz.  That's most of what Bill, Sean, Barry, and I have been 
talking about.

Ran
[email-masked]