Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050526013158.0495f810@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 02:50:12 +0200
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <01LOO6TWJIE200004T@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <2005525153951.923652@bbfujip7> <42948627.7020407@stevecrocker.com>
	<01LOO6TWJIE200004T@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: non identified main root cause problems
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Brian,
you asked about non documented root case problems. The main one I see is 
the lack of common identification of the ultimate purpose of the network 
itself. Most in the IETF target a good "end to end" interoperability. Some 
also target good "technology to technology" interconnection. But the idea 
that the Internet technology is only another way to help the people in 
their daily relations seems to be missing. And the idea that languages are 
human communications protocols to be supported the same as HTTP or SMTP is 
a few parsec away.

I will not dwell on the resulting lack of users participation (those who 
will use the IETF deliverable): there always is someone to say the IETF is 
not here to address users needs but that the Internet standard process is 
only to document a consistent set of propositions of its Members. And that 
the market will freely decide to use or not. This is addressed by RFC 3774.

But I will mention the technical architecture limitations it leads to. When 
compared with other network technology implementations, the Internet 
current system is often characterized by architectural parameters defaulted 
to one. This certainly works well as KISS. If all the users are equal and 
the same. But it appeals only standardizers who wants to default to that 
single conception. Who have a limited or no interest  and no culture about 
diversity. With the consequence that they do not appeal on people with a 
diversity of ideas: they go for grassroots processes.

This translates into a single IANA, a single root, a single IPv4 tree, a 
single IPv6 plan, a single language, a single network culture. And an 
experimented singular difficulty to address real life issues.

As you know, today there is the support of the ccTLDs specific issues, 
there will be soon the language equal opportunity support, then the 
reference center distribution, then the middle box and network intelligence 
integration, etc. Each time there are a few members to say "the system can 
do it if you set the parameters to two, or even to 256", like for TLDs, but 
nothing moves, nothing is tested, nothing becomes a proven standard.

A typical example is the ICANN ICP-3 Part 5, It calls for DNS 
experimentation. Experimentation of classes (current parameter is 2, the 
second class being "CHAOS") and of the possible evolution towards a non 
single authoritative root file. It quotes the IETF as a possible technical 
leader. IETF was never interested (what makes ccTLDs to ask now where they 
should go for the results).

Another example is the technology monolingualism. It limits contributions 
from non-English speaking people, who develop their solutions by their own. 
This worrying because it may affect the network stability. It aslo limits 
the conceptual and sometimes the operational scalability of the technology. 
Mechanisms making the technology independent from languages are missing. 
The logic, libraries, experience of their deployment are missing. This will 
make an evolution towards the Multilingual Global NGN more complex.

This root cause "monolithic" problem is very well documented, starting by 
the mere fact it was not identified.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf