The IETF's problems

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Sat Jul 19 08:19:15 CEST 2003


Keith - who are you or the IETF to make any commentary or anything else as
to what technologies are made available for use on the Internet. You nor
your management are empowered to govern the Internet and as such your
actions here constitute an restraint of trade if their are implemented as
policy.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems


> ] >>  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.
>
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list