IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[todd glassey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <swb at employees.org>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission


> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 04:13:20PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > The IETF covers a wide range of technical areas and it is impossible
> > to set fully objective boundaries that allow an algorithmic answer to
> > the question whether a particular item is within the IETF's technical
> > scope. However, it can be stated that IETF work items are always
> > concerned with either the Internet Protocol layer itself (Layer 3 in
> > the ISO/OSI Reference Model), with its management and routing, with
> > transport protocols (Layer 4) that may seriously impact the correct
> > functioning of the IP layer, or with direct uses of the transport
> > layer that provide generic services. Security mechanisms for all of
> > the above are also in scope.

As are the critical audit and timestamping (the evidentiary processes) that
document the functioning of the system. Generally these have been mashed
into the "Security Stuff" listing but in many instances they should and are
stand-alone feature-sets and technologies so...

> >
> > Transmission technologies below Layer 3, and upper layer protocols
> > that are not generic in nature, are generally out of scope. Also,
> > tightly integrated suites of generic upper layer protocols (for
> > example, the Web Services protocols) may be more appropriately
> > specified by a dedicated standards body.
>
> Corollary: Anything that has to run everywhere IP runs.  This pulls in
> protocols which need to establish state at every IP hop, not just
> waypoints (e.g. application proxies).  The one that's on my mind is
> MPLS.