The IETF's problems

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 20 11:59:49 CEST 2003



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <jseng at pobox.org.sg>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<iljitsch at muada.com>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems


> 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.

No James you cannot. You can decide what you personally want to work on but
the instant you try and stop someone elses initiative you become a legal
problem to the organization. The ISTE is not your personal resource, in fact
the vetting resource is not the IETF's at all. It belongsx to the
participants, and any refusal to allow any protocol or submission in is a
problem.

Ask Jorge if you doubt this.

>
> 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.

Cool - I also have very similar views, and I also see that it is irrelevent
where a submission comes from as long as its properly disclosed. Myself, I
think that caveat emptor is the watchword here anyway so... But the real
issue here is that the IETF has essentially used itself to lock any numbe
rof initiatives out of the running becuase one of the sponsers already had
an initiative underway there or had a financial interest in not losing their
"champion" for lack of a better word.

Unfortunately, what this has made is an Oligarchy of sorts of the IETF and
its initiatives. There is no way to retire a standard, nor any possibiliy
for any upstart to realistically bring a protocol through fruition in the
IETF's process if any of the established players dont want it to happen...
I suggest that you read the document I just submitted to the I-D desk called
Fair and Open RFC2026... Its an analysis of the terms fair and open and an
analysis of the language used in RFC2026 and what it mandates as far as
acceptable IETF processes.

Except that its bounced several times already... for some reason...

Todd

>
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list