IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[Eric Rosen]

> Why an IETF standard, and not a Traffic Light Controllers Forum standard? 

Here's the typical progression.

The "traffic  light controllers forum"  concludes that the  Internet doesn't
really  provide  adequate  service/qos/oam/security  or  whatever  and  that
controlling  traffic lights requires  an ATM/FrameRelay/DialUp/X.25/Ethernet
or whatever.  (Perhaps the rules for voting in the traffic light controllers
forum prevent the technical issues from being considered.)

A  few rebel  traffic light  providers  then get  together with  one or  two
networking vendors and  figure out how to do the  traffic light control over
the Internet.

In a short  time, this proprietary mechanism becomes  widely deployed, while
the "standard" produced by the forum  has no deployment.  The forum fails to
see  this,  and continues  to  work on  perfecting  the  standard by  adding
additional OAM to it. 

The rebels (who by now are  controlling most of the traffic lights) start to
worry about their  dependence on one or two vendors, and  decide they want a
published standard  with some sort of  imprimatur.  So they ask  for an IETF
WG.

Meantime,  the  IAB (whose  job  is  to fret  and  deplore)  issues a  paper
deploring the  inadequate congestion  control, security, and  scalability of
the proprietary mechanisms, fretting about the effect on the Internet.

Prominent IESG  members announce that  anyone who pays attention  to traffic
lights is  clueless, that no  one will ever  control them over  the Internet
anyway, and  that the whole  thing is just  a vendor scam.   Operators don't
care  whether  traffic  lights  work  or not,  controlling  them  just  adds
complexity.   Besides, traffic  light  control protocols  weren't needed  in
1990, so how can they be needed today? 

A WG is  formed, but the charter requires that  a requirements and framework
document be produced before any protocol specification work is done.

Four years later the IETF  standards for the application get approved.  They
are quite similar to the  proprietary mechanisms, which already dominate the
industry.  Prominent IESG members still  insist that no one will ever deploy
them.  Other IETF members ask why the standards have been rushed through.

The traffic light controller forum  then endorses the IETF standard, renames
themsevles to be the "IP-based  real time device control forum", and asserts
itself to be the proper standards body for all kinds of IP-based protocols.  

Seriously:

- A  considerable amount of time  could be saved  if the IETF just  does the
  work in the first place.  

- The very last thing we want is a proliferation of clueless forums claiming
  to be  producing standards  for IP-based protocols;  it's hard to  see how
  that is "good for the Internet".

- Traffic light control  was picked  as an  example in  order to  make IETF
  involvement look absurd; if a  more realistic example (providing some sort
  of network service or network  infrastructure) had been picked, the proper
  conclusions would be even more obvious.