IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series)
Brian E Carpenter
brian at hursley.ibm.com
Sun Jun 8 16:04:38 CEST 2003
Eric Rosen wrote:
...
> Considerations often cited which I don't agree with:
It's a bit hard to separate the polemic from the rational in this
list, but let's try:
> - must not be intended for uses which violate my personal values
That really doesn't seem to me to be a factor. As we saw with RFC 1984
and RFC 2804, to take two examples that may be relevant to your
underlying point, when there is a clear majority view among the
individual engineers who make up the IETF, the IETF may decide that
certain things are inappropriate topics for standardization in the IETF.
> - must not be intended for uses which violate my idea of how the Internet
> should be used
Same response.
> - must not be intended for uses which allow Service Providers to add value
There is a principle, which I think has been articulated often as a shared
value in the IETF, that we shouldn't standardize things that harm the
Internet as a whole, or that destroy global connectivity and access. It may
well be that this principle is sometimes in conflict with tools that might
serve short-term commercial interests of SPs. I would indeed hope that
the IETF would decline to standardize such things. But your version
is caricature.
> - must not violate some alleged philosophical principle articulated 25 years
> ago
Let's just pretend you didn't write "alleged" and "philosophical". There
are a bunch of engineering principles that *were* articulated between
about 1974 and 1985 that are objectively behind the Internet's success
(compared say to SNA, DECnet, and OSI). Some them were collected in
RFC 1958. The basic physics of packet switching hasn't actually changed
much since 1969. So if you think that there have been changes that
invalidate some of those principles, please write the Internet-Draft
explaining this.
> - must not make it more difficult to write multi-party peer-to-peer
> applications
Yes, that's a very valid technical objection to certain things. The future
of e-business certainly requires multi-party peer-to-peer connectivity,
so I'd say there's a few hundred billion dollars of revenue riding on
this one.
> - must have the highest conceivable level of security
Caricature. "Must not have sloppy security" is more like it.
> - guaranteed bug-free
Caricature, but indeed any pretence that we can have bug-free specs
first time is illusory.
Brian
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list