IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
Scott W Brim
swb at employees.org
Mon Nov 3 18:31:44 CET 2003
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 05:19:01PM -0000, graham.travers at bt.com allegedly wrote:
> How are you interpreting "has to" ? Are you implying that IP can't run without MPLS (for example) ?
I see the ambiguity. I meant, if this protocol (suite) is run at all,
it needs to be run on all the intervening nodes at the IP layer. It
isn't one that just establishes state in edge nodes, or proxies, via a
TCP exchange. A protocol like that should be dealt with in the IETF
because if it's used at all it needs to be part of the Internet
infrastructure just as much as IP is.
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 04:13:20PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > The IETF covers a wide range of technical areas and it is impossible
> > to set fully objective boundaries that allow an algorithmic answer to
> > the question whether a particular item is within the IETF's technical
> > scope. However, it can be stated that IETF work items are always
> > concerned with either the Internet Protocol layer itself (Layer 3 in
> > the ISO/OSI Reference Model), with its management and routing, with
> > transport protocols (Layer 4) that may seriously impact the correct
> > functioning of the IP layer, or with direct uses of the transport
> > layer that provide generic services. Security mechanisms for all of
> > the above are also in scope.
> > Transmission technologies below Layer 3, and upper layer protocols
> > that are not generic in nature, are generally out of scope. Also,
> > tightly integrated suites of generic upper layer protocols (for
> > example, the Web Services protocols) may be more appropriately
> > specified by a dedicated standards body.
> Corollary: Anything that has to run everywhere IP runs. This pulls in
> protocols which need to establish state at every IP hop, not just
> waypoints (e.g. application proxies). The one that's on my mind is
More information about the Problem-statement