Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:19:00 -0300

Hello SM,

I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily
must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is
that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings,
(b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that
the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in
Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as
Melinda said.

Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures,
as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be
more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC).

IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and
others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations?

Regards,

Julião

Em 24/05/2013 11:43, SM escreveu:
> Hi Juliao,
> At 18:34 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote:
>> I stare at the map of where the IETF meetings occurred
>> (http://ws.org.br/index.php/IETF_Meetings) and wondering if the fact of
>> bringing some of the meetings to below the Equator could lead to
>> increase people participation.
>
> That's a nice map.  It highlights the division between the northern and
> southern hemispheres.
>
>> The answer is always negative. Will not increase participation of more
>> people.
>>
>> Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> How then can we increase participation in meetings of the IETF? My
>> answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of annual
>> meetings.
>
> The answer did sound strange at first.  I think that your answer might
> be appropriate for a different question.
>
> At 19:37 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote:
>> I think we will have new challenges to be defined. New opportunities for
>> change that can stimulate, for example, the coming of researchers
>> immersed in universities and / or research centers, not yet
>> participating in the IETF. Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can
>> contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or
>> working as reviewers. Regarding the participation in discussions of the
>> mailing lists, I think that they might be involved with reasonable
>> intensity, ideas, and knowledge.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Perhaps the IETF should and can change (not where it has always been a
>> success) to capture new people.
>
> It would take a huge effort to do the above.  A person trying to do it
> will make a lot of enemies.
>
> Do you know people in universities or research centers in South America
> who might be interested in contributing their knowledge?  If so, could
> you ask them to comment on ericas?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:31:51 +0100

Hi Julião,

> Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as

Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most
important form of participation is remote - contributing to
list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to
meetings is important too, but less so.

Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important
that everyone realise that if you can write good technical
emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an
as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:52:55 -0300

Hello Stephen,

Probably I'm lost. So I need some answers.

1. What we looking for?
1.1. Realize a IETF below the Equator line (Buenos Aires is a great option)?
1.2. Encouraging people of so-called "emerging countries" to participate
in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)?

2. Why?
2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO!
2.2. IETF needs more people to work? My answer is YES! Protocols are in
change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new
techniques, etc.
2.3. We want more people to participate, effectively (a.k.a. Melinda
three points)? So, what do we need to do?

3. What kind of things should we discuss?
3.1. Costs of travel and stay? In the context of this can be irrelevant
(we can participate remotely...). In any place of the world, costs are
equivalent, I think.
3.2. Show what do IETF, ISOC, and others for people who do not know yet?
3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings?

4. Some observations:
4.1. The personal attendance at meetings of the IETF are falling after
year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in
http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/10/ietf-d-58-como-participar-das-reunioes-do-ietf/,
at the end. I do not know about the remote participation. The red line
is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!)
4.2. The participation of LACNIC is in the last position (2.? %).
4.3. Clearly the issues related to Infrastructure Internet are becoming
more complex. (2.2 above).

Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list?

Regards,

Julião
PS: We can not forget that I express better in Portuguese. So I can be
causing, eventually, some problems of understanding, which will require
further clarification.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:19:23 +0100

Hiya,

> Probably I'm lost. So I need some answers.

Sure.

In my mind at least there's a 0-th level requirement
that comes before these:

0. Make the Internet better by getting more geographically
diverse, technically good, input and participation.

And again you do not need to be at meetings to participate.
Email is fine.

Of course if you want to do lots of IETF stuff, then getting
to meetings becomes important.

> in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)?

1.2 for me. But I'm also in favour of 1.1, though at a lower
priority.

> 2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO!

I don't get that.

> change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new

Sort of. I think we need more people who are technically
clueful about stuff, for a wide set of different kinds of
stuff.

> 3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings?

Seems ok, but too much focus on your 3.x often distract people
on IETF lists.

> year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in

The dot-com bust was the biggest factor in the decline in
numbers compared to 1999/2000. That was economic (craziness;-)
and not geographic.

> is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!)

Yeah. Mind you, the level of Irish participation is also
pretty crappy;-(

> Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list

I'd say generic issues here, BA specifics on the thread on the
IETF list.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:18:26 -0700

Hi Juliao,
>Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as

The IETF revenue from meeting registration fees is around three 
million US dollars.  IETF expenses are around five million US 
dollars.  ISOC contributes around two million US dollars to the IETF.

LACNIC's budget is about four and a half million US dollars.  ICANN's 
revenue is around 232 million US dollars.  ISOC's revenue is around 27 million.

Let's assume that there are four Regional IETF meetings and they cost 
around two million US dollars.  The IETF does not have money to pay 
that cost.  That cost is about half of LACNIC's budget.  As I know 
that I cannot suggest that LACNIC helps out with the cost.  I don't 
know whether ICANN or ISOC would help with the cost.  Let's assume 
that money is not a problem.  You still have to get at least the main 
WG participants at the meeting.  Each individual will have to spend 
about ten thousand US dollars per individual.  In my opinion a format 
which is a scaled-down version of an IETF (Annual) meeting is not workable.

There are interesting points in your message:

  (a) motivators for participation

  (b) helping people from South America participate in the IETF

Both points require money.  Somebody will have to have to convince 
organizations to give, for example, one million US dollars.  The next 
step would be to identify people who are motivated to 
participate.  The "helping people" is the most difficult part.  I 
think it is doable with a lot of effort.  It is more than one year to 
do all this.  Most of the effort will have to come from people from 
South America.

>more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC).

This is what could be described as "outreach".  You could try and 
convince LACNIC or CGI.br to help out.

>others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations?

Could you ask the people from SBC to comment on this mailing list 
about the above?

In another message you mentioned that there is very low participation 
from Brazil.  There are one or two persons from Brazil who 
participate in DNS-related discussions.  That's like participating in 
two IETF working groups.  Most of the IETF work is not about DNS.  As 
a starting point I suggest asking people from Brazil to come and 
discuss on this mailing list if they need help in finding out which 
IETF working groups may be relevant to what they are interested in.

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:58:08 -0300

Hi SM,

I think there are a lot of people from LACNIC and from CGI.br / Nic.br
in this list. The Chair of Brazilian ISOC Chapter is member of CGI.br.
Certanly, they will transmit your message. When possible I will
remember, too.

In the next Brazilian Congress of SBC I will try to invite interested
peoples for BoF about IETF.  And in some especific Symposium, too.

IETF could develop a form to send via the mailing list of the SBC, as I
said. I suppose this is the correct way. If the IETF need help I'm
available.

Regards,

Julião
Em 24/05/2013 16:18, S Moonesamy escreveu:
> from Brazil.  There are one or two persons from Brazil who participate
> in DNS-related discussions.  That's like participating in two IETF
> working groups.  Most of the IETF work is not about DNS.  As a
> starting point I suggest asking people from Brazil to come and discuss
> on this mailing list if they need help in finding out which IETF
> working groups may be relevant to what they are interested in.
>
> Thanks,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:11:14 -0430

Hi Stephen,

> as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant.

  You are absolutely right, and there are people who have written I+D
and RFCs without attending a single IETF meeting.
  The point here is that if you have a meeting in LATAM it might help
bringing more people to the IETF. Of course it won't be a radical
change and it won't bring 100 people. But at least bringing few people
is just fine.
  Additionally, to attend a meeting, to see the people, to talk with
them makes a big different, after it, it's easier to write emails, to
participate in the IETF community.
  After this discussion started I haven't stop comparing it with the
Olympics games. The Olympics logo (flag) which have 5 interlaces
rings, each of them representing a continent. Until now, after more
than 2000 years LATAM have not has an Olympics games (I know we are
not comparing apples with apples, just a thought)

> S.

Alejandro,

-- 
=====
^A.......o$

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:21:48 -0300

Mexico City 1968.

:)

Regards
as

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:18:23 -0700

Hi Juliao,
>in this list. The Chair of Brazilian ISOC Chapter is member of CGI.br.

I went through the mail archives for this mailing list.  I saw only 
one person from LACNIC.  I did not see anyone from CGI.br/Nic.br.

>peoples for BoF about IETF.  And in some especific Symposium, too.

That is a positive initiative.

>said. I suppose this is the correct way. If the IETF need help I'm

As you have attended an IETF meeting you might have noticed that the 
IETF works in an informal way.  In my opinion there isn't a correct 
way.  Vinayak Hegde explained some of the problems that people who do 
not usually speak English encounter and that it is a barrier to 
participation( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79479.html 
).  That barrier will remain as long as the people from, for example, 
the Brazilian Computer Society do not show interest in participating 
in the IETF.  If there is interest an IETF Area Director or someone 
else will try to find a way to help the people from the Brazilian 
Computer Society.

We can discuss about whether it is for the IETF to contact the 
Brazilian Computer Society or you could convince some people from the 
Brazilian Computer Society to comment on this mailing list about the 
problems they face.  I think that having people discussing here would 
be the easier alternative.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 -0300

Em 24/05/2013 19:18, S Moonesamy escreveu:
> I went through the mail archives for this mailing list.  I saw only one
> person from LACNIC.  I did not see anyone from CGI.br/Nic.br.
> 

So, you can see these peoples in ietf list. What about you call them via
ietf list? Also, if you want I can foward some message from you to the
ISOC chapter and GTER (Nic.br) lists, and some lists of Lacnic.

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79479.html ).  That
> barrier will remain as long as the people from, for example, the
> Brazilian Computer Society do not show interest in participating in the
> IETF.  If there is interest an IETF Area Director or someone else will
> try to find a way to help the people from the Brazilian Computer Society.
> 

The most of people from SBC don't have problems with English. They are
academic / research people and students in computer science area. There
are a wide variety of interests within the computer science and I do not
tell you how many people from SBC would be interested in the IETF. For
this reason I commented about the form.

I'll prospect for you, some lists of interests which would be people
interested in the IETF and will let you know as soon as possible.

> We can discuss about whether it is for the IETF to contact the Brazilian
> Computer Society or you could convince some people from the Brazilian
> Computer Society to comment on this mailing list about the problems they
> face.  I think that having people discussing here would be the easier
> alternative.
>

I think is necessary a formal contact of an IETF representative. One
here, one there, I can convince to join the list. And I will do this.

Regards,

Julião

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:04:15 -0700

Hi Juliao,
>ISOC chapter and GTER (Nic.br) lists, and some lists of Lacnic.

I would like to mention that I can only comment as an individual.  I 
do not represent the IETF or speak on behalf of the IETF.

If you look at the IETF discussion archive you will see that a 
message was sent to politicas mailing list.  There are people from 
Nic.br and LACNIC subscribed to that mailing list.  If they are 
interested in helping out there already know how to do that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Humberto Galiza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:40:37 -0300

Hi folks,

In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'.

Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on 'recognized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. In my opinion the fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can help us to talk with Brazilian Research Council to recognize the IETF process as an academic initiative.

I think that Brazillian ISOC chapter had tried to speak with SBC/CNPQ before...but anyway any help would be great.

Cheers,

Humberto Galiza

Enviado via iPhone

Em 24/05/2013, às 22:04, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> escreveu:

> I would like to mention that I can only comment as an individual.  I do not represent the IETF or speak on behalf of the IETF.
> 
> If you look at the IETF discussion archive you will see that a message was sent to politicas mailing list.  There are people from Nic.br and LACNIC subscribed to that mailing list.  If they are interested in helping out there already know how to do that.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:05:22 -0800

On 5/24/13 5:40 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote:
> In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from
> academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that
> IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic
> council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings
> doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'.

Right - it's not research.  I would *love* to see more input
from Brazilian operators (telcos and ISPs).  We don't currently
get enough operator review of our documents and it's one area
in which you could both help the IETF and have an impact
(visibility).

Maybe it's just me but I am not convinced that computer
science researchers in academic careers have that much of
a role to play in protocol standards.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
[email-masked]

"Software longa, hardware brevis."

---

From: Humberto Galiza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:16:45 -0300

> in which you could both help the IETF and have an impact
I agree with you: it´s not research, but you should agree with me that
many people that are engaged and producing standards are from academia
(see the past meetings attendee list), so I think these people play an
important role in the process.

> a role to play in protocol standards.
I think so, at least people from network (and security?) areas. There
are a lot of subjects that are being discussed on IETF´s mailing lists
at this time that are common interest with academia, do you agree?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:49:56 -0800

> important role in the process.

I attended for many years from a university, but only for a
few of those in a pure research role even though the email
address and institutional affiliation stayed the same.  From
having participated in the IETF for many, many years, it's
my feeling that there are very few academics, in large part
because the IETF really just does not do research.  If you
look back to the early days the affiliations were academic
because that's who the "internet" was at the time.  Now,
IETF participation is overwhelmingly from vendors (equipment
manufacturers).  I think to change that would mean changing
the incentives to participate in the IETF, which doesn't make
that much sense to me.

Seriously: there's a need for operator participation.  It's
a bit less clear that there's a need for academics.

Melinda

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:15:56 -0300

In Brazil, for example there are a lot of operators / vendors that only
do business for here, nothing more. All of them are mere subsidiaries /
offices / representatives of international corporations. They write
codes here? Never! They adapt codes to the location.

So, no chance to have people interesting to the IETF in the sense based
in your qualifications. Thus there is a significant divergence between
the people here and the people of other countries in relation to the
interest over the IETF. Probably, if we understand these differences we
can adjust our viewpoints.

I think we are actually agreeing with the same things but speaking
orthogonally, by elementary cultural / geographical reasons, to say the
least.

Julião

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:50:19 +0000

Hi,

> Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on 'recognized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. In my opinion the fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can he…

I'm not sure the IETF would count as an academic initiative, but the IRTF might have a better chance. We've been discussing what we can do for the IRTF, because recognition issues exist even in the US and the UK, for example.

One specific thing we're investigating together with the RFC Editor is what we can do to have RFCs count as academic publications. Brian Carpenter and Craig Partridge have written a very eloquent argument why this is so [1], and we're now trying various things in order to push for acceptance of RFCs. This includes getting DOIs assigned, others are trying to get ResearchGate to count them as pubs, and more. See the recent thread on  irtf-discuss on "RFCs accepted journal articles". (We're making this argument for RFCs published on any stream, by the way, not just the IRTF Stream RFCs.)

If there are other things we should do - esp. if it helps the recognition of RFCs as scholarly articles in emerging regions - please let me/us know!

Lars
(IRTF Chair)

[1] http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2010/January/1672308-1672315.pdf

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:55:08 +0000

Hi,

> a bit less clear that there's a need for academics.

I humbly disagree. Just as you want the people who understand the day-to-day practicalities of running the net, you do want folks who can abstract out an understand networking at a conceptual and architectural level.

Plus, professors are multiplicators, and if they are aware of the IETF, their students will be aware when they enter their professional careers. I think you'd be surprised about the number of IETF participants that are still attending now because they got exposed to the IETF through professors such as Henning Schulzrinne, Jon Crowcroft, Carsten Bormann, Colin Perkins, Olivier Bonaventure, Joe Touch, etc. etc.

Lars

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:12:03 +0100

>> doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'.

That's the same more or less everywhere I think. Certainly
here too. I think people have been aware of it for a long
time, but with no particularly good ideas emerging as to how
to do something about it. ("It" being that IETF work is no
longer seen as good academic stuff, and our publications
don't count for tenure etc.)

Personally, I always treat RFCs as if they were 1st class
journal publications and say that on CVs, and where relevant
on funding applications, etc. However, mostly that gets
entirely ignored or people disagree with me. Sigh. I still
think its worth the argument though:-)

> Right - it's not research.  

Mostly. However, IMO doing work in the IETF enables much better
research. I have met many academics that don't really have
much clue as to how things work or what'd be useful. Many of
'em happily run ns2 and not much else but are apparently
experts in networking.

> I would *love* to see more input

Also true.

> a role to play in protocol standards.

I disagree here. Good academics bring at least two things
that we need more of - better knowledge of the state of the
art and more objectivity. Lots of excellent IETF participants
have both already, but there are also many participants
who could do better in these respects.

If you think about the late-surprise problem, I reckon that
had we more good academic participants, at least some of
that would be avoided.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Humberto Galiza <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:00:47 -0300

Hi Melinda,

Perhaps what I said about academic engagement at IETF were
misunderstood. In my case, my first "real" contact with IETF was in
early 2009, when I was looking for something to work in my final
undergrad course. I found some stuffs in IRTF talking about Internet
growing problem statement and a 'new approach' of IP functions
splitting that they called LISP. When I talked about this with my
advisor he was very excited about this subject, and we started to
study this subject.

As a result of this study: 1) I had the opportunity of attending my
first IETF meeting as an ISOC Fellow and understand a bit more about
all the process, and tried to give my contribution in the LISP
project; 2) We got a paper published in a Brazilian Computer Networks
Society Workshop (2010); 3) My advisor encouraged more pupils to get
involved with IETF standardization process (for example: there is
another guy from my university that recently defended his master
thesis about LISP mobility). These people (including me) never wrote a
RFC (or even a simple draft - I hope to write one day), but for our
community (academic community / regional operators community) it was
very important because we could disseminate a specific thing about a
protocol that is being discussed at IETF WG and disseminate the IETF
itself.

Until this, I had read some RFCs/BCP (since I´m a network operator
too) but I have no idea about how it was discussed, who was discussing
about it, and where to find these people.  I´m completely sure that
IETF is not an academic forum, but I´m sure that these academic people
could help the standardization process, and help themselves working on
specific problems at IETF and publishing about it.

Cheers,
Humberto Galiza

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:21:34 -0700

Hi Humberto,
>protocol that is being discussed at IETF WG and disseminate the IETF

The mailing list archive for the LISP WG is at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html  What 
the IETF will see is that there isn't anybody from Brazil 
participating in the LISP WG.  It may be very important for Brazil to 
disseminate the IETF.  That unfortunately does not bring much value 
to the IETF.

I understand that it is difficult for people from emerging regions to 
identify how they can bring value to the IETF.  Antonio Moreiras 
mentioned the following:

   "Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people to
    participate for the first time, and come to know the process,
    and become involved."

A significant number of IETF participants will read that as:

    Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people from
    Argentina to attend an IETF meeting for the first time, and come
    to know the process, and become involved.

The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan.  There aren't a lot of people from 
Taiwan who have become involved since then.  The IETF held a meeting 
in Dublin.  There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become 
involved since then.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:47:55 -0700

>'em happily run ns2 and not much else but are apparently

A friend and I have been trying to get a local university to deploy 
IPv6.  The people at the university are teaching people about IPv6 
and yet they do not have any interest in working with the technology.

>who could do better in these respects.

Lars Eggert mentioned that "you do want folks who can abstract out 
and understand networking at a conceptual and architectural 
level".  It is difficult to get that type of expertise from people 
working for companies which sell products or from people who use 
these products in their networks.  The quality of drafts from 
non-academic organizations is sometimes awful.

Having a large number of vendors participating in the IETF makes it 
difficult to get objective opinions about drafts which are intended to be RFCs.

Andy mentioned that the funding system is broken.  I would say that 
it is broken even more in emerging regions where it creates more 
future experts in networking who's only interest is getting their 
names on "units of research".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Humberto Galiza <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:23:02 -0300

Hi SM,

IMO, there is just one way to disseminate IETF in Brazil (although I
believe that´s apply to all emerging countries): getting key people
from these countries working to disseminate it.  Whose are these
people? Answer: mostly, people from universities - lectures and
researchers. Why? Because mostly (pure)network operators from these
countries (at least from Brazil) are just 'pieces of system', they
usually have a lack of knowledge and don´t want to discuss protocols,
best practices and so on; or they have a heavy diary workload and they
just want to get their job done.

I think this behavior is in part-fault of industry / vendors, because
most of them that have any kind of operation on emerging countries
don´t stimulate their local engineers / or even their customers (a.k.a
network operators) to get involved with IETF process. If there is
anybody in this mail list from big vendors like Juniper, Cisco,
Extreme, and others, please let me know what you have done to
stimulate your engineers from emerging countries to get involved with
IETF.

I´m pretty sure that following this way we can be more effective
bringing value to IETF in a short time.

Cheers,

Ps: I´m still in the LISP-wg mail list, but I´m not working on it anymore.
Humberto Galiza

2013/5/25 S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html  What the
> IETF will see is that there isn't anybody from Brazil participating in the
> LISP WG.  It may be very important for Brazil to disseminate the IETF.  That
> unfortunately does not bring much value to the IETF.
>
> identify how they can bring value to the IETF.  Antonio Moreiras mentioned
> the following:
>
> The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan.  There aren't a lot of people from Taiwan
> who have become involved since then.  The IETF held a meeting in Dublin.
> There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become involved since
> then.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 12:27:57 -0700

Hi Humberto,
>people? Answer: mostly, people from universities - lectures and

The problem with the "universities - lectures and 
researchers" approach is that we get back to the 
egg-and-chicken problem.  In my opinion it will 
take a lot of time to solve that, assume that it can be solved.

>just want to get their job done.

What I understand from the above is that there 
isn't any motivation for network operators from 
Brazil to participate in the IETF as they just want to get their job done.

>network operators) to get involved with IETF process. If there is

I agree.

>bringing value to IETF in a short time.

I would suggest something different.  If you 
participate in the IETF it brings value to the 
IETF.  If you have the time let's talk and see 
what could be done to make it easier for you to participate in the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:05:45 -0300

This is probably true, but difficult to really probe or deny.

On 5/25/13 2:21 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Taiwan who have become involved since then.  The IETF held a meeting in
> Dublin.  There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become
> involved since then.

/as

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:22:32 -0300

If true (I think it is) then any initiative of the IETF regarding
emerging countries should be permanent.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:40:37 -0300

I would said that specially for emerging economies but not only for
those. We also need other types of diversity.

/as

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:24:09 -0700

Hi Humberto,
>bringing value to IETF in a short time.

There was a short discussion in 2009 about when 
the IETF would hold a meeting in Brazil.  It was 
mentioned that meetings follow the "center of 
gravity", i.e. if there participation from Brazil 
there will be a meeting there.

As an example, there is an IETF working group 
discussing about the standardization of 
SPF.  There was a proposal in Brazil related to 
SPF ( 
ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/gter34/03-SPFrev.pdf 
).  Nobody within the IETF working group is aware 
of that proposal.  The working group would 
probably know about the proposal if it was being 
discussed in North America or Europe.

In my opinion this highlights how the language 
barrier and the usual IETF approach can be a 
disadvantage to participation from Brazil.  The 
IETF could put in more effort in finding out how 
to reach out to people from Brazil; for example, 
by looking into what you suggested.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:40:05 -0300

SM,

As far as I am aware Danton is preparing to present a document in WG.

But you're right about what you said.

Juliao

Em 26/05/2013 13:24, S Moonesamy escreveu:
> As an example, there is an IETF working group discussing about the
> standardization of SPF.  There was a proposal in Brazil related to SPF (
> ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/gter34/03-SPFrev.pdf ).  Nobody within
> the IETF working group is aware of that proposal.  The working group
> would probably know about the proposal if it was being discussed in
> North America or Europe.