IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the
Document Series)
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Tue Jun 10 08:36:22 CEST 2003
--On Friday, 06 June, 2003 13:50 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian at hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> In any case, since we don't actually use the complexity we
> already have (3 grades of standard), the need is clearly to
> *simplify* the document scheme, not to complicate it. My
> thinking is getting more radical the longer this discussion
> continues. Let's think seriously about
>
> Problem: the 3 step standards track is largely fictional
>
> and possible solutions along the lines of
>
> Solution: let's scrap it and have all "standards" RFCs as a
> single level (with recycling in grade for
> corrections/updates).
Sigh. I wondered how long it would take us to get there.
Several years ago, when it became clear that the efforts (and
investment) on OSI were going nowhere, and that TCP/IP was
taking over, many of the "traditional" standards bodies went
into a huge excursion of "future standards planning" in which
they tried to map out a future in which users and industry
didn't automatically come to them every time a standards issue
arose. From their perspective, that (and bodies like the IETF)
were problems that needed fixing.
Now there was a subtext in some of those concerns, which might
have been stated as "how do we professional standardizers,
process experts, and generalized go-ers (thanks, Marshall) who
haven't done real engineering and design for years (if ever)
keep our nice jobs, frequent flyer miles, and fine lunches and
dinners?" but, regardless of the motivation, the problem
remained: what were groups like the IETF doing that they needed
to imitate, co-opt, or defeat?
There were several answers:
(1) We didn't standardize fantasies about where the industry was
likely to go, or where we wanted it to go. No "anticipatory
standards" here. Documents didn't advance to full standard, or
even draft standard, unless there was solid implementation
experience.
(2) We didn't have a mandatory five-year (or other) review cycle
that led to permanent WGs dedicated to each [group of]
standards, provided a full-employment situation for WG chairs,
and virtually guaranteed second-system effects (while the
initial development WG often contained solid engineering
expertise and was usually in touch with real customer and
product requirements, and the first review cycle might contain
some of those people in order to fix bugs that had been
discovered, by the time of the second review (third time around)
sponsoring companies had almost always pulled out the useful
designers, replacing them with people whose fantasies about
improvements usually exceeded their experience and knowledge).
(3) We were reluctant to simply declare an old standard obsolete
and replace it. Instead, we worried a great deal about
compatibility and interoperability between old versions and new
ones. And we didn't "withdraw" the old documents from the
marketplace, making copies of it essentially unavailable.
(4) We didn't try to support the standards process, or its
bureaucracy, by either selling standards (and tight control over
copyrights to make that feasible) or extracting high
participation, "membership", or "service" fees from participants.
(5) Partially as the result of (4), we enabled and encouraged
participation by interested and dedicated individuals and also
from academics and researchers (not just corporations,
government bodies, and institutional IT departments).
(6) Our key participants were still rooted in products --
developing code, determining requirements, doing leading-edge
research in the relevant technologies -- rather than being
full-time standardizers or process experts.
The "optimists" within those traditional standards believed that
all of the above were just the result of our lack of
organizational maturity. They were convinced that, as age,
scale, and a sense of responsibility toward the marketplace
caught up with us, much of the above would disappear and we
would turn into "them".
I thought they were wrong. I'm beginning to wonder. Note, for
example:
(i) We have apparently succeeded in turning the IESG into a full
time job. Some of the members are essentially lent to us for a
while from the product-rooted jobs identified in (6) or are
still trying to do IESG along with day jobs. But we are, at
best, on a slippery slope.
(ii) More and more of our proposed standards are approved at "we
generally think this is a good idea" phase, rather than on the
basis of solid experience along at least some dimensions. That
is ok, because we still have Draft and Full standard levels...
whoops, we are now talking about dropping those (note that this
has nothing to do with whether or not those two grades should be
combined).
(iii) We are talking about semi-permanent "maintenance WGs". It
may well be a good idea, and better than any of the
alternatives, but it takes us away from the "WGs get formed
around a specific function, do their work, and then dissolve"
model... and we had best be careful what we wish for.
(iv) Meeting fees have reached a level we would have considered
inconceivable a decade ago, and we have considered shifting more
authority and responsibility to the Secretariat and other
IETF-paid professionals as a means of reducing load on the IESG
and/or WG Chairs and Editors, etc.
Hmm...
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list