Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050914173454.0540b440@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:44:14 +0200
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or
 alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 14:32 13/09/2005, Pekka Nikander said:
>OTOH, maybe I am just a  dreamer and totally off the ground here?

No, you are not!

However the problem with a "vision" is to know where the boarder is=20
between dreams and real future. This is why I prefer a more prosa=EFc=20
"model" which gives a simple image everyone can easily understand in=20
the same way.

For example, everyone - knowing the e2e principles can escalate it to=20
a b2b concept of brain to brain interintelligibility when it comes to=20
human languages (inter-brains protocols). And understand very simply=20
why internationalisation is e2e and multilingualisation is b2b. Two=20
different layers.

For example, everyone - knowing the e2e principles car enlarge their=20
"mono" vision to a 'n.(e2e)' "multi" vision:
- where e2e principles are respected in multilple parallel [split,=20
into simpler - as per RFC 1958] relations,
- where link ends are welded together and the edges (OPES) to provide=20
real final "added" value:  not on the wire [as an impossible "e2e=20
added value" ] but as an "added e2e's value".
And understand that an OPESed SMTP does not need to read an e2e mail=20
when a parallel e2e link told it the mail did not originate from the=20
other end it claims.

Another way to be sure you are not a dreamer is to look if your idea=20
worked in the preceding public international network deployments=20
(Tymnet, OSI). Obviously you have to translate it in/from IETF words=20
... and be opposed many "this is not an Internet way" ....

Another way to discriminate between dreams and reality: if you are=20
really alone of your opinion, you are right. Because it is not=20
possible the words counts so many wise people. This is the 80/20=20
rule. As long as the true majority is less than 80 the situation is=20
stable. Over that the minority is probably the coming revolution.=20
This is the difficulty in reaching a consensus. If 100% more or less=20
the noise(rough consensus): we all agree, right or wrong. A 5 to 20%=20
opposition is probably right. The big difficulty is to discriminate=20
between noise and less than 5%. We are back to your question....

jfc


PS. Here is a quote of a mail to a WG-Chair who prefers to stick to=20
his charter and see his WG die, instead of working on its revamp=20
based on the WG's acquired expeirence. Conflict between requested=20
engineering and lack of IAB exciting architectural proposition.

"This is why I have decided to proceed in parallel, using IETF Drafts=20
so information will continue to flow. May be will this increase the=20
ad-hominems as the economics will also increase. But at least we will=20
go ahead. The architectural error is democracy. I never asked my=20
phone or my computer to be democratic: I ask them to work.

Reseach is not democractic. The error is the IETF "consensus": the=20
consensus was OK in the early days when everyone was standardiser,=20
experimenter and user. Now when seven employees of the members of a=20
commercial consortium represent a "consensus" for a "BCP" against=20
(RFC 3863 included) the users, the only solution for the users is to=20
renew with the old system and to specify, test and use by themselves.=20
The problem is that users are disorganised, so they will develop in=20
parallel, and we will have balkanisation. Too bad."









_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf