The IETF's problems

[Keith Moore]

] >>  But when even large vendors are unable to get protocols that
] >> they feel is important (and have implemented or are implementing)
] >> "through" IETF, there is a problem.
] 
] > Let's get this straight right now.
] 
] Yes, let's. Because whichever party is suffering from the misconception 
] here, the result is the same: some people are unhappy with what the 
] IETF does because their expectations don't match reality.

some people are unhappy with the IETF because their expection does not
match their perception of IETF's behavior. 

or even more succinctly "some people are unhappy with the IETF"

well, big deal.

] If people in general and large vendors 
] in particular come to the IETF wanting to work on something within the 
] IETF, and this work falls within the areas of interest of the IETF, 
] then it would be a very good idea that the IETF indeed work on this. 

I strongly disagree with this as a categorial statement.  Many kinds of work
that people want IETF to do are not "very good ideas".  IETF has been
pressured by powerful concerns to standardize NATs, means of eavesdropping,
bits in IP headers to identify porn, protocols that encourage monopolies or
give one vendor a competitive advantage, protocols that  harm the Internet
architecture and the ability of existing and future applications to use the
Internet, and even protocols that don't interoperate (but which allow vendors
to claim standards compliance).  None of these are good ideas, and IETF should
neither invest its resources in, nor lend its imprimatur to,  bad ideas.

Yes, some people will get frustrated with this.  So be it.  IETF cannot do its
job properly without disappointing people.  Unless IETF says "no" to bad
ideas, there is no reason for IETF to exist.  IETF is useless unless it's
endorsement is a reasonably reliable indication of quality.  Currently, IETF
does not say "no" often enough - and that also has harmed its reputation.

] > And large vendors are not reliable indicators of what is good for the
] > Internet.
] 
] Like _anyone_ can predict what is going to be good for the internet 
] anyway. Large vendors are reasonable indicators of what is wanted in 
] the internet and what's going to happen in the internet, though.

I disagree with that also.  Large vendors do not represent their customers'
interests, and they never have.  Quite often the interests of large vendors
are diametrically opposite of their customers'.  Large vendors want to
maximize profit, customers want to maximize value.  Large vendors want to lock
in their customers, customers want flexibility.  etc.  Which is part of why
IETF rules stipulate that participants must act in the best interests of the
Internet as a whole.
 
] They're implementing the stuff most boxes connected to the net will be 
] running a couple of years from now.

The stuff may be in those boxes, and people may even try to use it.  But that
doesn't mean it's deserving of standardization or endorsement.  There's a lot
of garbage in deployed products.