IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
Eric Rosen
erosen at cisco.com
Thu Oct 16 11:33:02 CEST 2003
> The critical difference is whether or not multiple *operators* will have
> to communicate using the protocol.
> As soon as the lights in NYC (owned, provisioned and bought by NYC) have
> to operate with the light controller in Chicago, then we need an IETF
> standard.
You are making a host of unwarranted assumptions. It's perfectly
conceivable that NYC has, say, five different networks, one for each of its
five boroughs, and that each network is run in an autonomous fashion. It's
equally conceivable that the main street light control facility is in
Manhattan, and it needs to talk to the lights in each of the five boroughs.
If one thinks of street lights in a set of smaller towns, it's quite
conceivable that each town has its own network, but that light control is
done from a regional center jointly funded by the towns. It's also
conceivable that a bunch of towns in one state might contract out their
light control functions to a company whose monitoring/control center is in
another state entirely.
So I don't think your criterion rules out the street light protocol.
There are some things which are clearly ruled out by your criterion: for
example, OSPF would be ruled out, and so would DHCP. I think SNMP would be
ruled out as well (one operator managing another's routers?).
I'd say then that your criterion does not reflect any existing practice nor
does it reflect a desirable practice.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list