RE: Proposed alternate milestones (Re: Straw-man charter)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> 
> At 11:41 AM 6/5/2004 -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> > >       - mention NANOG in the discussion under "methods", but leave
> > >         it out of the milestones
> >
> >a small nitpick:
> >please be careful to talk about 'operator forums' in general,
> >IETF listens to input from operators across the globe.
> 
> Good point. The IETF is a global group. Nanog is a North American
> group.
> 
> Does this squash the idea of having meetings at operators forums? It
> would seem impractical to have meetings at operators forums in each
> of North America, Asia, and Europe, and even this would be missing
> some other operator's forums.
> 
Nope, having interim meetings co-located or adjacent to NANOG is fine.
The warning I think was more to make sure that we do not ignore
possible input from operators in other parts of the world...
see below

> We certainly could have individuals give talks at each of multiple
> forums in order to get the word out regarding what we are doing.
> 
That would be a good way to keep the other operators informed and
to solicit input. Maybe a BOF at such meetings can be done too.

And you may be able to post regular reports to some of the other
organisations mailing lists.

Just thinking aloud so you get the gist.

> Should we simply mention the desire to coordinate with operator's
> forums in the charter (without mentioning any specific forum), and then
> have a discussion in the working group regarding what this means and
> whether it means picking out a particular group for an interim meeting?
> 
I'd just add some wording that you WILL also sollicit input from other
orgs/fora... 

Bert
> thanks, Ross
> 
>