Response to WG last call, Problem Statement: Thoughts on the IETF problem statement

[todd glassey]

The problem is that this WG and others will likely take those drafts as the
"totality" of the problems and this will impede the rest of the critical
issues from being addressed as well.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: <Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com>
To: "Robert Snively" <rsnively at brocade.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; "'Pekka Savola'" <pekkas at netcore.fi>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Response to WG last call, Problem Statement: Thoughts on the
IETF problem statement


>
> Robert,
> I think you are trying to push this debate in the right direction but this
> is more a "solutions" rather than a "problem" issue.  The current draft
> really is "good enough" so let's ship it and get on with solving the
> problems rather than talking about them.
>
> Adding some more formality, making IETF a bit more SDO-like and improving
> the scalability of the work of making standards are key issues but they
are
> all already identified in the problem statement.
>
> - Alistair URIE
>
>
>
>                       Robert Snively
>                       <rsnively at brocade.com>               To:
"'Pekka Savola'" <pekkas at netcore.fi>, Robert Snively <rsnively at brocade.com>
>                       Sent by:                             cc:
"'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'" <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
>                       problem-statement-bounces at al         Subject: RE:
Response to WG last call, Problem Statement: Thoughts on the  IETF problem
>                       vestrand.no                          statement
>

>
>                       20/11/2003 19:19
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Savola,
>
>
> I can understand your concern about working within a carefully
> structured system that guarantees open and fair access to
> all interested participants.  Such structure may seem confining.
>
>
> However, I am puzzled by what missions and roles you have in mind for
> the IETF.  It is an engineering task force.  I have assumed it is
> intended to promulgate open common solutions for the internet.
> How is that different from any other SDO, which intends to
> promulgate open common solutions for its own special area of interest?
>
>
> If there are other roles or missions that would be left out by
> considering itself as a formal SDO, they do not seem to be included
> in the problem statement as constraints.  Could you please
> expand upon this?
>
>
> My principal point was that there is a need to more widely delegate
> technical responsibility to achieve the scalability required
> by today's internet standardization efforts.  While there may be
> many ways to do that, the present SDOs (including IEEE-Stds, INCITS,
> and ISO) provide helpful and successful models which are worth
> our study.  I am not sure that the GPL development model of
> Linux is a helpful model because of the structure of the
> networking marketplace.  And it is clear that the present model
> of IETF does not meet the requirements. (See
> <http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1117ietf.html?nl> for one
> description of the problem.)
>
>
> I would point out that there are other roles associated with
> evangelizing a standardized technology, but those roles usually
> are attached to an industry trade group or interest group without
> a direct standards development responsibility.
>
>
> Robert Snively
> rsnively at brocade.com
> +1 408 333 8135
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:46 AM
> > To: Robert Snively
> > Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
> > Subject: Re: Response to WG last call, Problem Statement: Thoughts on
> > the IET F problem statement
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Robert Snively wrote:
> > > First let me briefly introduce myself.  I have created and led the
> > > creation of national and international standards in the
> > INCITS, IEEE,
> > > and IETF environments.  I have additionally created defacto
> > standards
> > > in industry interest organizations, both commercial and voluntary.
> > > As a result, I have a fairly diverse background in the creation of
> > > standards and can speak directly to the challenges as seen from
> > > the working group and area levels.  >From my experiences, I
> > believe that
> > > I can provide some helpful consideration to the overall IETF process
> > > up to the IESG level.
> > [...]
> >
> > This clearly shows that different people have different missions and
> > roles in mind for the IETF; some would prefer to have it as an
> > official SDO, in every aspect (with the problems that causes); some
> > others want to avoid it at all costs (with the problems we're aware
> > of).
> >
> > I certainly would not wish to be part of a "full SDO" IETF.
> >
> > --
> > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> >
> >
>
>
>
>