The IETF's problems

[todd glassey]

James - with inconsistency - how is it possible that ANYONE gets the same
treatment or gets their standard processed under the same mechanisms? and
the answer is that they cant. So then the IETF is not a Uniform Standards
Practice but rather an adversarial one for some and a greased-skid for
others.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <jseng at pobox.org.sg>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems


> It is good to be inconsistent. Different areas, different wgs, different
> requirements. Some can have one, some can have more then one.
>
> -James Seng
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > The problem is that this is not consistent across all WG's - And AD's
are
> > really the last word still on whether a competitive WG was created.
> >
> > What I am trying to illustrate here Spencer is that the really fair
process
> > involves creating an initiative based on the ability to field a team of
> > vetting resources. So if there is a WG that has 200 people subscribed to
it,
> > how many of then actually work on any given initiative? the numbers will
> > surprise you and the list archive bears all this out.
> >
> > The real issue is then creating a formal requirement for all WG's to
> > participate in the process equally and allow for any number of
initiatives
> > as long as the work gets done.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
> > To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
> >
> >
> >
> >>Ummm, but we DO have competing documents. I think we're more likely
> >>to do them in parallel working groups (see IMPP/SIMPLE/XMPP for
> >>running code), and that's probably better anyway (less mud-slinging
> >>within a working group), but don't even START on how many IPv6
> >>transition mechanisms we have, or how many MANETs we have, or ...
> >>
> >>Spencer
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
> >>To: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
> >><iljitsch at muada.com>
> >>Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:20 AM
> >>Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Melinda - All -
> >>>I have a question, and that is "do you consider the IETF's not formally
> >>>allowing more than one standard track item per/WG per/initiative-scope"
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>problem?, because I do, and I consider it a serious one at that. What I
> >
> > am
> >
> >>>referring to is the fundamental issue of whether WG's should be allowed
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>limit the number of initiatives on any one track to one, and my take is
> >>
> >>that
> >>
> >>>the answer here is NO.
> >>>
> >>>My reasons for asking this are that RFC2026 and 2223 as well as 2418
all
> >>>talk about the scope and process of the standards model, but none of
> >
> > them
> >
> >>>really have any process for one effort to supersede another unless that
> >>>effort is done by the people "owning" that spot originally. There are
no
> >>>"hostile takeover guidelines" or processes, and that means that any
> >>>evolution of challenge of a commercially used protocol has to have the
> >>>blessings of the WG Chair and those that already own that standing in a
> >
> > WG
> >
> >>>(This of course pertains to existing protocols predominantly).
> >>>
> >>>So look - here is an example, Say I have a protocol for "Whiz-Banging"
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>there is already a protocol on track inside a WG that Whiz-Bangs but in
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>different manner. So the question is whether the IETF can support two
or
> >>>more Whiz-Banging implementations, or only one, because if the answer
is
> >>>"only one" then we need to also have a method for how would anyone
> >>
> >>introduce
> >>
> >>>the second Whiz-Banging protocol to the IETF to compete with the other?
> >>>
> >>>The problem is that the answer is today that functionally that this
will
> >>>never happen. And it is because it is very very unlikely that the folks
> >>
> >>with
> >>
> >>>their Whiz-Banging Protocol are going to want to roll-over and die...
> >>>
> >>>So then what happens??? The challenging Whiz-Banger is submitted to the
> >>
> >>I-D
> >>
> >>>staff as a disclosure. The I-D staff go to the WG Chair who makes a
> >>
> >>judgment
> >>
> >>>that they will not allow that protocol to harm the one that has already
> >>>gotten investment from them and the others in their WG, so now the WG
> >>
> >>Chair
> >>
> >>>takes an active role in suppressing the challenging effort. But say the
> >>
> >>I-D
> >>
> >>>issues get past the WG Chair, so then perhaps with the current model
the
> >>
> >>I-D
> >>
> >>>staff also decide that they don't want to publish this draft because it
> >>>competes with an already in-process or existing standard or
> >>
> >>standards-track
> >>
> >>>participant. So this is yet another hurdle to publication and an issue.
> >
> > So
> >
> >>>now they as well are part of a restraint of trade development process
as
> >>>well.
> >>>
> >>>So the question simply is where does this end?  Just how does the IETF
> >>
> >>allow
> >>
> >>>for a competitive effort, since anything else seems to have serious
> >
> > legal
> >
> >>>issues with restraint of market development (the building of standards
> >
> > is
> >
> >>a
> >>
> >>>key part of this). Or is this just not of importance to this IETF?
> >>>
> >>>Todd Glassey
> >>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>
> >>>To: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>
> >>>Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:35 AM
> >>>Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On zondag, jul 20, 2003, at 19:28 Europe/Amsterdam, Melinda Shore
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>The discussion itself isn't doing much to distill the topic
> >>>>>down to document text, and we need to stay focused.  Do you
> >>>>>feel that existing text regarding scope in the problem
> >>>>>statement document is inadequate?
> >>>>
> >>>>Not sure what you mean by scope.
> >>>>
> >>>>However, many of the "root" problems in the problems draft aren't that
> >>>>fundamental. The three most fundamental problems I see are:
> >>>>
> >>>>- the IETF doesn't know what it wants to be: a "real" standards
> >>>>organization or some kind of a grass roots movement
> >>>>- inability to make decisions other than just wait until there is
> >>>>agreement or come up with convoluted processes that only work because
> >>>>people are forced to interact until they somehow solve the problem
> >>>>- inability to manage resources effectively and efficiently
> >>>>
> >>>>Iljitsch
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>