Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050803010230.0581ce20@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:38:40 +0200
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>,
	"IETF General Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD375A29CA@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.
	ad.vrsn.com>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD375A29CA@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 
Subject: RE: I'm not the microphone police, but ...
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Interesting: I like you piercing spirit. But, I am afraid you are too muc=
h=20
legacy intoxicated :-) what I think surprising. I suppose we agree but yo=
u=20
have odd ways of seeing it.

At 18:58 02/08/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com]
> > Except if you can grab a BCP. I am not sure you are actually
> > right. You certainly know a few cases.
>
>The lack of an IETF endorsed spec from MARID did not stop Microsoft from
>holding an industry gala two weeks ago in NYC. Nobody commented or
>appeared to care that the spec was not ratified.
>
>Think of it as a recess appointment.
>
> > The problem with IETF is there is no architectural common vision.
>
>No, that is its strength. The Web was not part of the IETF common
>vision. SSL was diametrically opposed to the IETF security vision.

I am afraid you speak of details. These are applications. There is no=20
common vision of the reality of the digital ecosystem nature. IETF has fu=
n=20
over layer 8 and 9. Layer 8 to 12 have a precise meaning, as has layer 0.=
=20
Sharing this meaning would help a common analysis and avoid confusing=20
Multilingual Internet with a bunch of typewritters, using typographer ISO=
=20
tables to document it.

> > IETF and IANA have a defacto monopoly on the architecture.
>
>No they don't. W3C and OASIS are both more influential as standards
>bodies at this point, particularly once we get above the session layer.

Again you speak of details. Of applications. I am speaking of the network=
=20
architecture. The evolution of the architecture is very very slow.
What I say is that in the real world, users are not interested in all tha=
t.=20
This is for application providers and applications are decided by the=20
users. Who known the W3C and SGML 10 years ago. Will we still know them 1=
0=20
years from now?

>The URI identifier architecture introduced in PICS and since adopted in
>XML eliminates the need for fixed registries like the IANA. That was the
>whole point, to eliminate the control point. I did not want a central
>registry of PICS censorship schemes. Of course other people did, mostly
>the people who used euphemisms like 'content selection' rather than
>censorship.

Agree. But IMHO this is a way to introduce at application level the very=20
basic "root name" principle introduced by Robert Tr=E9hin and Joe Rinde i=
n=20
1977 which founded the International Network, in part the OSI and default=
ed=20
to "root" with the Internet defaulting its architectural parameter to=20
"mono" from "multiple" in Tymnet and from "separated" in OSI. This is wha=
t=20
we have to correct now.

I would phrase it another way. The IANA is one of the many roots in the=20
International Network forest. But that trunc of that root hidden the=20
forest. The Multilingual Internet is probably the best application to for=
ce=20
and fund the necessary effort to look at the forests. But some suspect th=
at=20
the resulting user-centric architecture (each one having its many roots)=20
has a different economical model.

And status quo is the best target for dominant one. At ICANN they use to=20
call the "stakeholders" ....

> > For example the whole IPv6 issue is that they did not understand that
> > their current deployement (2001) is disposable.
>
>The failure to get the deployment stakeholders round the table to ask
>the question 'what will it take to make this happen' is in my view the
>root cause.

I do not. Because what will make it to happen is the disappearance of=20
"stakeholders". Let understand, the current network is made of people who=
=20
want to organise, to sell, etc. it. The future stable IPv6 network by=20
nature (it would not be an evolution otherwise) will be made of people=20
wanting just want to use it. And the first thing they want to get rid of =
is=20
the artificial limitations of the stakeholders.

Take care. I am quite interested in your security factor in relations. Di=
d=20
you work on that (I did not recall exactly how you termed it: we called=20
"delta sec", and people grab the idea quick). I suppose that network=20
security could be discussed in a similar way to network value?
jfc








_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf