IETF Role other than as Standards Body

[Bound, Jim]

Thanks Harald.  I consider operational work standards work.
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
>Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:27 PM
>To: Bound, Jim; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Subject: Re: IETF Role other than as Standards Body
>
>
>
>
>--On mandag, mars 24, 2003 12:01:22 -0500 "Bound, Jim" 
><Jim.Bound at hp.com> 
>wrote:
>
>> One of the subjects in the draft is what is the IETFs role.
>>
>> My bias is that it is a standards body.  It is not a deployment body 
>> and does not own how the Internet or networks are actually deployed, 
>> other than through standards that are used.
>>
>> Who we are and believe we are affects our process, technical review, 
>> and the IESG decision process.
>>
>> If we accept and state who we are out of this process it will help 
>> greatly.
>
>We have a huge part of our collective minds wrapped around the 
>standards 
>process.
>There are some of our activities, especially but not limited to the 
>activities in the Ops area (for instance dnsops, bmwg, mboned, nasreq, 
>ptomaine, v6ops, ieprep) tht take a slightly wider perspective 
>on what it's 
>proper to write documents for than is commonly done in a pure 
>standards 
>body.
>
>When sloganeering (which I have occasionally done), I've used 
>the phrase 
>"The IETF is about making the Internet work".
>
>>
>> As example I know of several large in process deployments 
>that use our 
>> specs but don't come to to use for choices of A, B, or C.  Those 
>> choices are often a business and economic decision and that the IETF 
>> has input too.
>
>sometimes the IETF writes documents saying that "for 
>environment X, C is a 
>stupid idea". I think this is sometimes a valid thing to do. 
>but I don't think we have any business telling people they 
>can't do what we 
>recommend they don't - we're not in the mandatory standards business.
>
>My thoughts.
>
>                Harald
>
>