IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[Scott W Brim]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 11:48:10PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
> As part of the discussions about change process within
> the IETF, the IESG has come to believe that a somewhat longer statement of 
> the IETF's mission and social dynamics might provide useful context for the 
> community's discussion.  As part of that, we'd like to put the following 
> document out for feedback.
> 
> It incorporates lots of ideas and some text from existing RFCs
> and IETF web pages, but is more focused on change than those have
> been.  We hope it captures a sense of the context of the work of
> improving the IETF, by capturing some of the social dynamics which
> have been an implicit part of the IETF's work and style over the years.

OK, but first, it doesn't clarify the mission, or the social contract.
At most it makes a couple vague statements after describing some general
problems.  It looks like the IESG has some sense of where the
problem-statement/solutions process is going, and wants to run with it.
That's okay -- but please say explicitly that's what's happening, if it
is.

> We also hope that by making some of those implicit elements more
> explicit, we may find it easier to understand how to make changes
> that will "go with the grain" of the IETF's history and culture.

What I want is a renewed, clear statement of the fundamental principles
of the IETF which must not be violated or weakened during the
problem/solution process.  It's important that the leadership of the
IETF keep clear themselves on what the fundamental principles are, and
to reiterate them when necessary (like now).  That's part of the social
contract itself.  There are principles which are at the heart of the
organization and which the (pseudo-)consensus process doesn't get to
touch.

> The IETF Mission
> ----------------
> 
> The IETF's mission has historically been embedded in a shared
> understanding that making engineering choices based on the long
> term interest of the Internet as a whole produces better long-term
> results for each participant than making choices based on short term
> considerations, because the value of those advantages is ultimately
> derived from the health of the whole.  The long term interest of the
> Internet includes the premise that "the Internet is for everyone".
> 
> Two years ago, the IESG felt that making the mission of the IETF
> more explicit was needed.  The following terse statement has since
> been promulgated, first by IESG members and then by others:
> 
>    "The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant,
>     and timely standards for the Internet."

The purpose of the IETF has always been to make the Internet work
better, in measurable operational terms.  All else descends from that.
We do standards because we have to, for now and for the future.  Why do
we care about network operators being in the room if our prime mission
is to make standards?  Why do we care if there are two interoperable
implementations?  The operations work of the IETF is important unless it
is being taken care of elsewhere.  It isn't frosting on a standards body
cake, it's just as important as standards.  

Beyond that, yes, the IETF is primarily an SDO, because many operational
issues and agreement on deployment BCPs are being taken care of by other
means, and also because standards is our main measurable output in the
eyes of the outside world.  The above statement applies, but it is not a
basic principle.  It derives from our fundamental responsibility, to
have an Internet that works well today and is robust and flexible enough
to work well in the future.

> It is important that this is "For the Internet,"  and does not include 
> everything that happens to use IP.  IP is being used in a myriad of 
> real-world applications, such as controlling street lights, but the 
> IETF does not standardize those applications.

A very poor distinction.  Everything runs on the Internet eventually,
regardless of what private area it was meant for to start with.
Experience is that everyone wins if there are Internet-compatible ways
of doing things from the beginning.  I fully expect street light control
to run as a secure service along with many other services over a generic
IP network.  However, it's okay to say that priority will be given to
work on the public Internet.

> The IETF has also had a strong operational component, with a tight
> bond, and hence coordination, between protocol developers and
> network operators, and has had many participants who did both.
> This has provided valuable feedback to allow correction of
> misguided standardization efforts, and has provided feedback to
> sort out which standards were actually needed.  As the field has
> grown explosively, specialization has set in, and market pressures
> have risen, there has been less and less operator participation in
> the IETF.

This has nothing to do with either mission or social contract.  Are you
saying "therefore we need to change our mission"?

Similarly for almost all of the rest.  What's the point?  Are you
reiterating the problem-statement work?  They're doing all right,
although perhaps you could help push the work to completion.  It would
be much more useful for you to reaffirm the fundamental principles that
are not on the auction block.

Have a good time at the meeting, I won't make it this time.

See you ... Scott