The IETF's problems

[James Seng]

we dont decide what technologies are made available for use on the 
Internet.

but we can choose the work we want to do, and RFC we want to publish.

ps: My view is that so long there is sufficient interest (or rough 
consensus) in any work, whether it comes from a large vendor or not is 
irrelevant. In fact, if a good idea comes a large vendor and people are 
interested to work on it, all the more we should.

james

todd glassey wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>