IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission )

[Bill Manning]

% --On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco.com> wrote:
% 
% > Well, let's test this assertion.  Suppose a consortium of electric
% > companies develops a UDP-based protocol  for monitoring and controlling
% > street lights. It turns  out that  this protocol generates  an unbounded
% > amount  of traffic (say,  proportional to  the square  of the  number of
% > street lights  in the world), has no  congestion control, and no
% > security, but  is expected to run over the Internet.
% >
% > According to you, this has nothing to  do with the IETF.  It might result
% > in the congestive collapse of the Internet,  but who cares, the IETF
% > doesn't do street  lights.  I would  like  to see  the  criteria  which
% > determine  that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights don't!
% 
% thanks for making the most concise statement of the conflict here in the 
% discussion so far!
% I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking 
% about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about 
% it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the issue 
% forever, with nothing but wasted energy to show for it.
% 
% In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3 different 
% other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:
% 
% - "Everything that runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF 
% 
% - "Everything that needs open, documented interoperability and runs over 
% the Internet is appropriate for IETF 
% 
% - "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that needs to be 
% open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF standardization". 
% 
% - "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is appropriate for 
% IETF standardization". 

% - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in making 
% the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
% 
% a discussion argue based on "the mission of the IETF", with conflicting 
% definitions, is not the best thing for the Internet.
% 
%                   Harald

	I guess for me, I always thought that the IETF and its
	precursors were interested in developing engineering 
	solutions / designing protocols that would allow "end2end or
	any2any" communications, regardless of underlying transport
	media, be it seismic wave, avian carrier, radio waves or
	the PSTN.  - At no time did I ever truly beleive that 
	the systems that used these protocols/solutions would always
	be on and fully connected.  Infrastructures that use IETF
	products have nearly always been only partially connected
	and many systems are not always on.
	
	So while a design goal might have been to support always 
	on/fully connected state, the reality is that infrastructres
	have nearly always been disjoint/unconnected and endpoints
	come and go.  But when they are connectable, they should 
	function in a seamless, e2e fashion, at least IMHO.

	And then you neglect an unstated presumption in the last 
	two bullet points:  As perceived by who?  


--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).