[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GMPLS Last Calls
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: GMPLS Last Calls
- From: Kireeti Kompella <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivery-date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:59:28 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > I agree with you whole heartedly. We must have the inputs from the carriers
> > and not from the vendors alone.
First off, there is an explicit request for input from *carriers* and
*service providers* (same beast, different color), especially for
requirements and in requirements-oriented design teams. It's a simple
distinction: carriers use the technology; vendors build the technology.
Speaking as a contributor to the IETF, I have no desire to build
technology (or define protocols) that won't be used; and if carriers
don't have input into requirements, they always have the ultimate
vote: not to buy/put into production the various new technologies/
So, prefacing emails to IETF lists by "I work for a carrier" or "I
work for a vendor" (or better yet, "I deploy the technology" or "I
build the technology") helps set the context, and is more than
acceptable, it is desirable (from my point of view).
However, any attempt to say "I work for such-and-and company, hence
you should listen to me", or "I speak for such-and-such company as
a whole" goes in my bitbucket -- in Randy's words, "is irrelevant".
If a suggestion or argument cannot stand on its own, throwing the
weight of one's company's name behind it won't help hold it up. I
am sure that that was not the intent in the email that started this
thread, but invoking company names raises doubts.
Please don't interpret Randy's comment as a personal attack, or as
an aspersion on the value of carriers' input to the IETF -- remember
that Randy is an august member of that very same species.