IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[Brian E Carpenter]

(Only to problem-statement. I assume the interested parties are mainly here.)

Firstly a general point. I am rather amazed that this draft comes
from the IESG alone, and not from the IAB+IESG. In fact, I'd like
an explanation. Since the IAB and the IESG are the two peer committees
that the IETF puts in place to oversee the architecture and oversee
the process, I simply don't buy the idea of a draft mission statement
that comes from only one of them.

Secondly, I agree with Melinda: take out the "problem" language. This
document should contain exclusively positive statements.

Thirdly:

Keith Moore wrote:

(and other people wrote similar things)

...
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I disagree with the sentiment as I understand it.  I don't think it's
> realistic anymore to take the view that what people run entirely on
> private networks is their own business and outside of IETF's purview.
> NATs, private addresses, and DHCP with short lease times have all had
> devistating effects on the Internet's ability to support applications.
> Insecure applications can facilitate the breeding of viruses that affect
> the entire network even if their intended interactions are only between
> a local client and server.

Furthermore, we have *explicitly* in the past given warnings about the
risk to users' interests of walled garden approaches. And RFC 3002 made
a specific recommendation as a result (please read the whole RFC for
context):

 4.2.1

   It was strongly recommended that independent of the ubiquity of the
   "walled garden" deployment scenario that protocols and architectural
   decisions should not target this model.  To continue the success of
   Internet protocols at operating across a highly diverse and
   heterogeneous environment the IETF must continue to foster the
   adoption of an "open model".  IETF protocol design must address
   seamless, secure, and scalable access.

I would like to see the mission statement endorsing this. Of course the
IETF will not standardize all *applications* but if we don't standardize
the IP environment, including at least transport and transport security,
and whatever is needed in the way of a session level, regardless of whether 
it is part of the big-I Internet, we will be doing our ultimate customers 
(ordinary users) an important disservice.

What we also need in the mission statement is enough boundary-setting that
we can relatively easily decide what fits into the "Applications" Area
and whether the Sub-IP Area belonged here in the first place. (I put
"Applications" in quotes because there isn't much in the Apps area that
outsiders think of as applications.)

   Brian