Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. +1 (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support this too. Regards Brian Carpenter On 10/08/2012 23:55, Bob Hinden wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. Bob On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair .
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I wish to thank Phillip and Eric for their illuminating comments. However, I'm still not clear on the role that great powers may play in the standards development and deployment, compared to that of vested interests. Stranger to economics, I may be conflating the concept of open standard with that of open source, and their relationships with markets. I'd be grateful if someone can explain the IETF's position in this game. At a first glance, many traits of the IETF look similar to those of open source organizations: Voluntary, unpaid participation, free products, meritocracy, even hairstyle. However, the hype that the Modern Global Standards Paradigm poses on industrial and commercial competition dwarfs the aim at benefiting humanity --hollow words someone said. With different purposes and techniques, networking giants, closed countries, and SDOs, all aim at controlling the Internet. The IETF has historically been different, AFAIK. But looking at it going to sit around a table with the sort of players mentioned in the messages quoted below, as in a remake of the Congress of Vienna, makes me feel doubtful. On Sat 11/Aug/2012 05:09:12 +0200 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: This has been going on for quite a few years now and I had read many iterations before the ITU-T Dubai meeting emerged as the venue of choice for the latest push on this idea. The real problem is that many of the smaller countries have lost tax revenue that used to be collected on international telephone calls and Russia and China are offering them the fiction that they will be able to recoup that if they bring the net under control. That idea is even more attractive to the telecommunications ministers who were getting a cut of that revenue. I think the idea that the ITU-T is going to write a treaty that western governments feel obliged to sign is rather silly. The US has had no problem refusing to sign treaties and withdrawing from UN charter bodies, none. Europe isn't a pushover either. Does anyone really imagine that the Senate is going to ratify any treaty that comes out regardless of what it says? There is a big difference between aspirational and necessary goals. The SCO countries aspirational goal is control of the net. Their necessary goal is to ensure that undue US influence over Internet governance might lead policy makers to believe that they could impose a digital blockade. Now I am pretty sure that the technology does not allow them to do that but what really matters is what the policy makers believe and there are some individuals who could well be in very senior policy making positions who clearly think it does. The necessary goal for the US is to maintain the openness of the Internet. At least that is what the State dept considers the primary goal at the moment. The big liability in the US position is the aspirational goal of maintaining control. Take that off the table and there would be remarkably little support for the SCO scheme. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read what the proposal is. The proposal being put forth is not that the ITU-T wants to write Internet standards. The proposal being put forth is that ONLY ITU-T standards will be the *legal* standards accepted by signatory nations. At best, this would be a repeat of GOSIP in the U.S., where the law was the U.S. government could only buy OSI products. The issue there was the private sector was still free to buy what it wanted and DoD did not really follow the rules and bought TCP/IP instead. TCP/IP in the market killed OSI. The difference here is some countries may take their ITR obligations literally and ban products that use non-ITU protocols. Could one go to jail for using TCP/IP or HTTP? That has an admittedly small, but not insignificant possibility of happening. Worse yet, having treaties that obligates countries to ban non-ITU protocols does virtually guarantee a balkanization of the Internet into open and free networking and controlled and censored networking. Just as it is not fair to say that if the ITU-T gets its way the world will end, it is also not fair to say there is no risk to allowing the ITU-T to get a privileged, NON-VOLUNTARY, position in the communications world. On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: I think the point needs to be made that standards organizations can only advise and not dictate. There is really no risk that ITU-T is going to end up in control of the technical standards that are implemented by the likes of Microsoft, Cisco or Google, let alone Apache, Mozilla and the folk on SourceForge and Github. The key defect in the ITU-T view of the world is that it is populated by people who think that they are making decisions that matter. In practice deciding telephone system standards right now is about as important as the next revision of the FORTRAN
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 15:52 10-08-2012, Eric Burger wrote: that the ITU-T wants to write Internet standards. The proposal being put forth is that ONLY ITU-T standards will be the *legal* standards accepted by signatory nations. Phillip posted the following comment previously: The strength of the IETF negotiating position comes from the fact that we cannot dictate terms to anyone. The consensus that matters is not just consensus among the people developing the specification document but consensus among the people who are expected to act on it. If one accepts the above principle signatory nations would still use some IETF standards for systems and equipment and push back on competing standards proposed within another organization. The sweetener in what was proposed is that developing nations would be provided with assistance to evaluate product compliance. A significant number of these nations do not understand what is the IETF and how it works. This does not affect the IETF as long as there isn't an alternative standard developed within an organization which these nations consider as reputable. The difference here is some countries may take their ITR obligations literally and ban products that use non-ITU protocols. Could one go to jail for using TCP/IP or HTTP? That has an admittedly small, but not insignificant possibility of happening. Worse yet, It is highly unlikely that someone would be sent to jail for using the protocols mentioned above. having treaties that obligates countries to ban non-ITU protocols does virtually guarantee a balkanization of the Internet into open and free networking and controlled and censored networking. Some of issues which the organization seeks to address are: - cybercrime - spam It has been mentioned within the IETF that the walled garden service model simplifies a number of issues. I don't think that some nations would consider network control to solve these issues as censored networking. Whether these issues could be solved without a strong regulatory regime is another question. At 20:09 10-08-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: The real problem is that many of the smaller countries have lost tax revenue that used to be collected on international telephone calls and I would describe it as a motivation to support a change which might bring in more revenue for these countries. The end user will get fleeced but that's just a matter of detail. There is a big difference between aspirational and necessary goals. The SCO countries aspirational goal is control of the net. Their necessary goal is to ensure that undue US influence over Internet governance might lead policy makers to believe that they could impose a digital blockade. Now I am pretty sure that the technology does not That debate has been going on for years. allow them to do that but what really matters is what the policy makers believe and there are some individuals who could well be in very senior policy making positions who clearly think it does. Yes. Regards, -sm
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. randy
VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1 Alkuperäinen viesti Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com Kopio: IAB i...@iab.org,IETF ietf@ietf.org On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. +1 (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) Lars
RE: management granularity (Re: Meeting lounges at IETF meetings)
There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New Zealand at the last IETF meeting. There was interest to have the IETF in New Zealand. I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the cookie-eating mob that it was a good location. I understand that New Zealand was felt to be too expensive[1] and the travel was too far for many[2]. NZ also suffers from a lack of conference facilities that are functional *and* have suitable accommodation near them to fit the IETF size. As much as I'd like to have NZ as a venue, since I could visit my family... aj A New Zealander, but not living in NZ. Vaguely affiliated with people who looked into hosting IETF in NZ. [1] NZ is surprisingly expensive for hotel accommodation in the major cities, and transport can be expensive or difficult. Flights can also be difficult since there isn't mass competition into the country unless you're trying to jump the Tasman. [2] 3 hours to East Cost AU, 10+ hours to Asia[3], 13+ hours to US, 24+ hours to Europe. Travel times would really hurt here. [3] For the bits of Asia that are directly connected (JP, SG, HK, CN, KR). If you need to connect (e.g. India) you could be looking at 20+ hours too.
Re: management granularity (Re: Meeting lounges at IETF meetings)
On 11/08/2012 14:07, JOHNSON, ALASTAIR (ALASTAIR) wrote: There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New Zealand at the last IETF meeting. There was interest to have the IETF in New Zealand. I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the cookie-eating mob that it was a good location. I understand that New Zealand was felt to be too expensive[1] and the travel was too far for many[2]. NZ also suffers from a lack of conference facilities that are functional *and* have suitable accommodation near them to fit the IETF size. The venue that was actually proposed was big enough (I did the maths) and surrounded by hotels. Travel cost and duration was an issue, for sure. Brian As much as I'd like to have NZ as a venue, since I could visit my family... aj A New Zealander, but not living in NZ. Vaguely affiliated with people who looked into hosting IETF in NZ. [1] NZ is surprisingly expensive for hotel accommodation in the major cities, and transport can be expensive or difficult. Flights can also be difficult since there isn't mass competition into the country unless you're trying to jump the Tasman. [2] 3 hours to East Cost AU, 10+ hours to Asia[3], 13+ hours to US, 24+ hours to Europe. Travel times would really hurt here. [3] For the bits of Asia that are directly connected (JP, SG, HK, CN, KR). If you need to connect (e.g. India) you could be looking at 20+ hours too.
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/2012 10:39, Alessandro Vesely wrote: I wish to thank Phillip and Eric for their illuminating comments. However, I'm still not clear on the role that great powers may play in the standards development and deployment, compared to that of vested interests. Traditionally, and still in some countries, the telecommunications monopolist *is* the government, so defending the monopoly is directly in the government's financial interest. In other countries, where there's still a de facto monopoly, that monopolist is very good at political lobbying. So in both those types of country, the vested interest drives the government position. Add that to the governments that want central control and/or monitoring of information, and you get a strong bloc of political support for standards and regulations that support monopoly, control, and eavesdropping. Brian
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
This is the kind of thing to which I'd normally pay no attention at all, but I don't get away with that these days;-) Anyway, I do reckon this is an important issue and, stilted language and all, this is very much worth supporting. So, I'd encourage everyone to try find out more about it and to support Russ and Bernard in signing this, and to spread the message locally that the IETF way of doing this stuff is, while not near perfect, the best we've seen to date. S. On 08/10/2012 04:19 PM, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support the thrust of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm It is particularly timely as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU and CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the document embraces. I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a document. While I am content with the wording of the section on IP this text is nevertheless imprecise. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf 4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially where open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). end clip If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful. What are time constraints? The first sentence seems to be describing the availability of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees charged for copies of standards. Specifications have to be available to users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free. But the words are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems to describe that licenses to practice essential patent claims related to a standards are available under fair terms However the global patent policy concept generally is that such licenses should be available under reasonable and non discriminatory terms. The single term reasonable and non discriminatory covers the situation where there may be a fee involved or not. There may be non fee based terms in what other wise be called royalty free licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND are different from royalty free It is that royalty free falls under the overall condition of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term when there may be non royalty terms involved. Sometimes the royalty free situation is described as RAND(0) I am also curious about the IETF experience with its patent policy. What is further background to the statement that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. The comments below that the paragraph does not accurately describe the IETF experience are worrisome. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. Russ: Understand. Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So, some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way, you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal standards development organization in the world, and there are other organizations that get together and are doing something that is slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And that isn't an immature form. We are hoping not to grow up into the more traditional form. We are trying to make a statement so that more people understand that this is a real thing, and that it is valuable. Scott Bradner: I made some comments on this document to the authors. I think it is a very important thing to say, for the reasons that Leslie just described. But I
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/10/2012 3:52 PM, Eric Burger wrote: Just as it is not fair to say that if the ITU-T gets its way the world will end, it is also not fair to say there is no risk to allowing the ITU-T to get a privileged, NON-VOLUNTARY, position in the communications world. Given the historical example of GOSIP, and its ilk, that you cited, we actually do have a basis for believing that a similar arrangement now will do quite a bit of damage. The difference in timeliness and pragmatics between a voluntary, industry-collaborative effort like the IETF's, versus a legally-enforced position like the ITU's work, has already been demonstrated. The latter never got their system running at scale. Occasionally in an email presentation, I'll ask an audience who among them is familiar with X.400. Very few hands get raised, yet for 15 years, it was in exactly the legally-enforced position being proposed now. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
--On Friday, August 10, 2012 15:52 -0700 Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read what the proposal is. The proposal being put forth is not that the ITU-T wants to write Internet standards. The proposal being put forth is that ONLY ITU-T standards will be the *legal* standards accepted by signatory nations. At best, this would be a repeat of GOSIP in the U.S., where the law was the U.S. government could only buy OSI products. The issue there was the private sector was still free to buy what it wanted and DoD did not really follow the rules and bought TCP/IP instead. TCP/IP in the market killed OSI. ... Eric, In the interest of understanding our position in this area as well as possible, I don't think the facts support TCP/IP in the market killed OSI except in a vary narrow sense. It would be much more accurate to say that OSI self-destructed and the TCP/IP was then available as a working technology that satisfied most of the relevant requirements. The self-destruction resulted from some combination of untested specifications that weren't quite implementable in an interoperable ways, promises that things would be ready two years in the future (a sliding target for more than a decade), gradually growing awareness of excessive complexity and too many options, and possibly other factors. It is worth remembering that in the most critical part of that period, the IETF wasn't developing/pushing TCP/IP in the marketplace but had its face firmly immersed in the KoolAid trough: we even had a TCP/IP transition area into the 90s. I might even suggest that we have abandoned the principle of simple and clear protocols with few options and, in a few cases, adopted the reach consensus by giving all sides their own set of options model that was arguably a large component of what made the OSI suite vunerable to self-destruction. The once-legendary speed with which we could do things has also yielded to a larger and more process-encumbered IETF. Today, we may have more to fear from ourselves than from the ITU. None of that has anything to do with whether the proposed statement is appropriate. The difference here is some countries may take their ITR obligations literally and ban products that use non-ITU protocols. Could one go to jail for using TCP/IP or HTTP? That has an admittedly small, but not insignificant possibility of happening. What happened last time was that a number of countries banned their communications carriers from carrying TCP/IP (or anything else) that didn't run over ITU protocols. Unsurprisingly, those bans were fairly effective in countries that were serious about them -- and that list of countries was not limited to out-of-the-way developing nations. Whether that would be realistic today is another question. The Internet is fairly entrenched, things have not gone well for countries who have tried to cut it off once it is well established, and some experts have even suggested that excessive restrictions on the Internet might constitute a non-tariff trade barrier. Relative to the latter and in these fragile economic times, one can only speculate on whether countries are more afraid of trade limitations and sanctions than of the ITU. More important, as Phillip (with whom I generally disagree on these sorts of matters) has pointed out, there is a long and rather effective history of what countries do when a UN body's behavior operates significantly against their national interests: they refuse to sign the treaties and, in severe cases, withdraw and stop paying dues and assessments. Remembering that there is no such thing as a Sector Member from a non-Member country, someone who was very cynical about these things might even suggest that the most effective way to get the ITU out of the Internet would be to have them pass these measures in their most extreme form with the medium-term result of wrecking their budget and, with it, their ability to function. Or one might speculate that is the reason why ITU's senior leadership appears to have largely backed away from the most extreme of those proposals. Worse yet, having treaties that obligates countries to ban non-ITU protocols does virtually guarantee a balkanization of the Internet into open and free networking and controlled and censored networking. A form of that risk exists whether such treaties are created or not. If a country considers it sufficiently necessary to its national interest to withdraw from the Internet and adopt a different and non-interoperable set of protocols, it will almost certainly do so with or without approval from Geneva. I believe we should make that process as easy as possible for them, designing things so that they can't hurt others when they do so. Countries who isolate themselves from contemporary communications technologies have not been treated well by history, economics, or their own populations. We also should not discount some possible
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/11/2012 7:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote: I don't think the facts support TCP/IP in the market killed OSI except in a vary narrow sense. It would be much more accurate to say that OSI self-destructed and the TCP/IP was then available as a working technology that satisfied most of the relevant requirements. Not really. In much of the world, OSI created the market demand for open systems. And yes, TCP/IP filled it when OSI couldn't. (In the late 80s, 25% of my TCP/IP product revenue was from Europe, including the IT department at ISO...) However had there been no TCP/IP, the OSI folks would have had to find a way to make their stuff work. While we like to think that original design decisions for OSI are what killed it, there's plenty of experience showing that really bad designs can be made viable, given enough effort.[1] The underlying problems with OSI design made success for OSI massively more difficult. However failure would not have been allowed had they been the only game in town. The presence of a viable and -- ahem -- superior alternative to OSI is what finally killed it, by diverting market interest to the alternative. d/ [1] The IETF-based characterization of this was by Marshall Rose: With enough thrust, pigs /can/ fly. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. I wasn't commenting on document editing. (It actually needs a serious editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates against pursuing that.) My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote: Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. Dave, I wasn't in Vancouver, nor even listening to the audio stream, so I can't comment on what happened there. However, the discussion here (e.g. on the ITU-T Dubai Meeting thread) and the previous opportunity to comment on the proposed statement, which has resulted in changes, strikes me as an open discussion of the kind we expect in the IETF. When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the time available. Brian
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. I wasn't commenting on document editing. (It actually needs a serious editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates against pursuing that.) My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com It is worth remembering that in the most critical part of that period, the IETF wasn't developing/pushing TCP/IP in the marketplace but had its face firmly immersed in the KoolAid trough Ahem. There were quite a few of us in the IETF sphere who were not at all fans of the OSI stack - and we worked very hard on TCP/IP, and the deployment thereof, precisely to kill the OSI stack. No disagreement with your other comments, just that one point. Noel
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1 But do not discount the possibility that inducing the US to withdraw is the objective of certain parties in this little exercise. On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Friday, August 10, 2012 15:52 -0700 Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read what the proposal is. The proposal being put forth is not that the ITU-T wants to write Internet standards. The proposal being put forth is that ONLY ITU-T standards will be the *legal* standards accepted by signatory nations. At best, this would be a repeat of GOSIP in the U.S., where the law was the U.S. government could only buy OSI products. The issue there was the private sector was still free to buy what it wanted and DoD did not really follow the rules and bought TCP/IP instead. TCP/IP in the market killed OSI. ... Eric, In the interest of understanding our position in this area as well as possible, I don't think the facts support TCP/IP in the market killed OSI except in a vary narrow sense. It would be much more accurate to say that OSI self-destructed and the TCP/IP was then available as a working technology that satisfied most of the relevant requirements. The self-destruction resulted from some combination of untested specifications that weren't quite implementable in an interoperable ways, promises that things would be ready two years in the future (a sliding target for more than a decade), gradually growing awareness of excessive complexity and too many options, and possibly other factors. It is worth remembering that in the most critical part of that period, the IETF wasn't developing/pushing TCP/IP in the marketplace but had its face firmly immersed in the KoolAid trough: we even had a TCP/IP transition area into the 90s. I might even suggest that we have abandoned the principle of simple and clear protocols with few options and, in a few cases, adopted the reach consensus by giving all sides their own set of options model that was arguably a large component of what made the OSI suite vunerable to self-destruction. The once-legendary speed with which we could do things has also yielded to a larger and more process-encumbered IETF. Today, we may have more to fear from ourselves than from the ITU. None of that has anything to do with whether the proposed statement is appropriate. The difference here is some countries may take their ITR obligations literally and ban products that use non-ITU protocols. Could one go to jail for using TCP/IP or HTTP? That has an admittedly small, but not insignificant possibility of happening. What happened last time was that a number of countries banned their communications carriers from carrying TCP/IP (or anything else) that didn't run over ITU protocols. Unsurprisingly, those bans were fairly effective in countries that were serious about them -- and that list of countries was not limited to out-of-the-way developing nations. Whether that would be realistic today is another question. The Internet is fairly entrenched, things have not gone well for countries who have tried to cut it off once it is well established, and some experts have even suggested that excessive restrictions on the Internet might constitute a non-tariff trade barrier. Relative to the latter and in these fragile economic times, one can only speculate on whether countries are more afraid of trade limitations and sanctions than of the ITU. More important, as Phillip (with whom I generally disagree on these sorts of matters) has pointed out, there is a long and rather effective history of what countries do when a UN body's behavior operates significantly against their national interests: they refuse to sign the treaties and, in severe cases, withdraw and stop paying dues and assessments. Remembering that there is no such thing as a Sector Member from a non-Member country, someone who was very cynical about these things might even suggest that the most effective way to get the ITU out of the Internet would be to have them pass these measures in their most extreme form with the medium-term result of wrecking their budget and, with it, their ability to function. Or one might speculate that is the reason why ITU's senior leadership appears to have largely backed away from the most extreme of those proposals. Worse yet, having treaties that obligates countries to ban non-ITU protocols does virtually guarantee a balkanization of the Internet into open and free networking and controlled and censored networking. A form of that risk exists whether such treaties are created or not. If a country considers it sufficiently necessary to its national interest to withdraw from the Internet and adopt a different and non-interoperable set of protocols, it will almost certainly do so with or without approval from Geneva. I believe we should make that process as easy as possible for
Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15
One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the trouble of actually adding a field. Witness X.509 Certificate serial numbers, which are arbitrary precision integers, but which frequently are used for a variety of information, all BER encoded... Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote: Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses, again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again. Heretic! That's OSI speak! Why do you hate the Internet you ISO/ITU lackey?!? /flashback Yeah, variable-length addresses would have been nice. There was even working code. Maybe next IPng. Regards, -drc
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
--On Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:51 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: ... But do not discount the possibility that inducing the US to withdraw is the objective of certain parties in this little exercise. Given the fraction of the ITU budget and the even larger fraction of the T-Sector budget that come from the US and US-based Sector Members, that would be fairly irrational behavior for those who wanted to preserve a healthy and well-staffed ITU. On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this area so I can't disagree with the possibility. john
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
--On Saturday, August 11, 2012 11:20 -0400 Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com It is worth remembering that in the most critical part of that period, the IETF wasn't developing/pushing TCP/IP in the marketplace but had its face firmly immersed in the KoolAid trough Ahem. There were quite a few of us in the IETF sphere who were not at all fans of the OSI stack - and we worked very hard on TCP/IP, and the deployment thereof, precisely to kill the OSI stack. Noel, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, only that there was sufficient IETF consensus to keep an Area and, if I recall, several WGs going. john
Re: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the time available. Brian +1 Stewart -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15
On 8/11/12 10:13 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the trouble of actually adding a field. Witness X.509 Certificate serial numbers, which are arbitrary precision integers, but which frequently are used for a variety of information, all BER encoded... given various semantic uses of bits within ipv6 addresses that have been proposed or which are used informally even with only 128 bits it's important to make this distinction. a freely extensible bit field will end up with all sorts of garbage in it, that at best is only signficant in one context, and at worse is significant in different fashions in different contexts. instead of having an locator-id you have a locator-qos-mpls-subscriberid-streetaddress-latlong-id Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote: Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses, again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again. Heretic! That's OSI speak! Why do you hate the Internet you ISO/ITU lackey?!? /flashback Yeah, variable-length addresses would have been nice. There was even working code. Maybe next IPng. Regards, -drc
RE: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing the document, Nurit -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:38 AM To: 'IETF'; 'IAB'; 'IETF-Announce' Subject: RE: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Hi Russ, I am conscious that this text needs to have the consensus of the three groups planning to co-sign, and we also need consensus of the IETF community that you sign it. Given the first of these, I think the question you ask is Are there strong objections? not Could we wordsmith this so we would be happier with it? Had you asked the second question, I would have been first in line (actually, I already sent my thoughts a couple of weeks ago). But I agree there is no scope for that at this stage. Since you asked the other question: No, I have no strong objection, and I support this statement being signed by you and the IAB chair. Thanks, Adrian -Original Message- From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Chair Sent: 10 August 2012 16:20 To: IETF-Announce Cc: IAB; IETF Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.p df An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it. --Paul Hoffman
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/12 19:10, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it. --Paul Hoffman Agree and support. Please sign it. - Tobias Gondrom
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 06:58 11-08-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Traditionally, and still in some countries, the telecommunications monopolist *is* the government, so defending the monopoly is directly in the government's financial interest. In other countries, where there's still a de facto monopoly, that monopolist is very good at political lobbying. So in both those types of country, the vested interest drives the government position. Add that to the governments that want central control and/or monitoring of information, and you get a strong bloc of political support for standards and regulations that support monopoly, control, and eavesdropping. Yes. Nowadays some governments only own a share of the telecommunications monopoly. Other operators, for example some companies who are part of the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association ( http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 ), have a financial interest in these monopolies. The US does not need central control because most of the content accessed by its users is internal traffic. It's easy to apply local laws. The EU can also use its laws on a country basis. Revenue which is a significant incentive for content providers. Advertising revenue per user for a one content provider is as follows: US/Canada $9.51 EU $4.86 Asia $1.79 Other $1.42 Here is a rough estimate of users for one content provider: US 158,758,940 Brazil 54,902,560 India 51,925,180 UK 37,569,580 France 24,345,920 Italy 21,822,640 Canada 17,474,940 Spain 16,075,560 Egypt 11,513,720 Russia 5,560,080 Romania 4,928,100 Tunisia 3,107,040 Libya 608,380 China 520,780 Uganda 444,560 If tomorrow Italy decides to adopt a sending party pays model it may still be financially viable for the content provider to remain in that market. It may not work that well for Uganda. If tomorrow Libya decides that it would be in its interest to control access to the Internet, operators can route around the problem as we all know that's how the Internet works. Well, not really, if most of the traffic passes through one international gateway. You can send traffic over port 443 to prevent eavesdropping as that port is secure. Well, not really, if the user already trusts the wrong SSL certificate. If you are on an Internet governance soapbox you might as well talk about how the US is evil and it should not be the only country running the Internet. You might also want to add that having only 13 root nameservers is all part of a conspiracy and that the IETF must fix that. Obviously someone must be running this Internet thing or else you will have to review your belief system. At 07:56 11-08-2012, John C Klensin wrote: Remembering that there is no such thing as a Sector Member from a non-Member country, someone who was very cynical about these things might even suggest that the most effective way to get the ITU out of the Internet would be to have them pass these measures in their most extreme form with the medium-term result of wrecking their budget and, with it, their ability to function. Or one might speculate that is the reason why ITU's Yes. A form of that risk exists whether such treaties are created or not. If a country considers it sufficiently necessary to its national interest to withdraw from the Internet and adopt a different and non-interoperable set of protocols, it will almost certainly do so with or without approval from Geneva. I believe we should make that process as easy as possible for them, designing things so that they can't hurt others when they do so. Countries who isolate themselves from contemporary communications technologies have not been treated well by history, economics, or their own populations. Yes. We also should not discount some possible advantages: for example, the withdrawal of a few selected countries from the Internet and enforced requirements there to use only non-interoperable protocols could do wonders to reduce the amount of malicious spam introduced into the network. :-( There are advantages in everything. At 08:11 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: [1] The IETF-based characterization of this was by Marshall Rose: With enough thrust, pigs /can/ fly. FWIW the original statement was different. At 08:13 11-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote: (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-) I am taking bets on who will be the next IETF Chair. :-) In traditional telecommunications the cost of sending one MB of data is around US$30. A user can get a one GB Internet subscription for the same price. In the traditional standards organization you don't have a say if in the baking of the standard. In the IETF you wring the neck of the WG Chair or Area Director if he/she does not let you have a say. As an anecdote, I was notified that I will
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it. I agree. Best regards Michael --Paul Hoffman
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 9:41 PM, SM wrote: Here is a rough estimate of users for one content provider: US 158,758,940 Brazil 54,902,560 India 51,925,180 UK 37,569,580 France 24,345,920 Italy 21,822,640 Canada 17,474,940 Spain 16,075,560 Egypt 11,513,720 Russia 5,560,080 Romania 4,928,100 Tunisia 3,107,040 Libya 608,380 China 520,780 Uganda 444,560 If tomorrow Italy decides to adopt a sending party pays model it may still be financially viable for the content provider to remain in that market. It may not work that well for Uganda. If tomorrow Libya decides that it would be in its interest to control access to the Internet, operators can route around the problem as we all know that's how the Internet works. These operators are (hypothetically) Libyan citizens, right? Residents of Libya who could go to jail for routing around the problem. Most likely on a charge of espionage. Well, not really, if most of the traffic passes through one international gateway. The number of international gateways does not matter, if all the operators have to comply with the government's blacklist, or have to install a government-mandated policy on a government-mandated firewall. You can send traffic over port 443 to prevent eavesdropping as that port is secure. Well, not really, if the user already trusts the wrong SSL certificate. Not trusting the certificate just means you get annoying warnings. It won't let you circumvent it. Living in an authoritarian country means you don't get to play cat mouse with your government If you are on an Internet governance soapbox you might as well talk about how the US is evil and it should not be the only country running the Internet. You might also want to add that having only 13 root nameservers is all part of a conspiracy and that the IETF must fix that. Obviously someone must be running this Internet thing or else you will have to review your belief system. I thought it was Al Gore running the Internet from his garage, no? Yoav
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it. I'm dubious as to how much influence this will have on the outcome, but +1 Yoav
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com These operators are (hypothetically) Libyan citizens, right? Residents of Libya who could go to jail for routing around the problem. Most likely on a charge of espionage. That worked pretty well for Qaddhafi. Oh, wait... Yes, it cost some whom he did catch, but in the end it didn't (couldn't) save him. He was unable to cut off the data flow (in and out). Noel
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
singing this statement is the right thing to do Scott (responding to a sorta-last-call) On Aug 11, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf no brainer. Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it. --Paul Hoffman
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. My thoughts exactly. d/
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote: singing this statement is the right thing to do For 0.29 seconds, I imagined you in front of a microphone in a recording studio, singing Modern Global Standards Paradigm to the tune of All the young dudes. For 0.29 seconds... Grüße, Carsten
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Wonderful image. IETF Discuss List, The Musical. I thought very well of Russ's discussion of the statement in Vancouver. I support signing it. Allison On Aug 11, 2012 7:14 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote: singing this statement is the right thing to do For 0.29 seconds, I imagined you in front of a microphone in a recording studio, singing Modern Global Standards Paradigm to the tune of All the young dudes. For 0.29 seconds... Grüße, Carsten
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
ah yes - Mac Mail being helpful (again) :-) On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote: singing this statement is the right thing to do For 0.29 seconds, I imagined you in front of a microphone in a recording studio, singing Modern Global Standards Paradigm to the tune of All the young dudes. For 0.29 seconds... Grüße, Carsten
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi Yoav, At 13:08 11-08-2012, Yoav Nir wrote: These operators are (hypothetically) Libyan citizens, right? Residents of Libya who Yes. The number of international gateways does not matter, if all the operators have to comply with the government's blacklist, or have to install a government-mandated policy on a government-mandated firewall. Yes. As these government-mandated policies only end up intercepting HTTP traffic it not worth the bother arguing about it. The entertaining part of the government blacklists is that they are maintained by an organization in another country. Not trusting the certificate just means you get annoying warnings. It won't let you circumvent it. Living in an authoritarian country means you don't get to play cat mouse with your government In most countries you don't play cat and mouse with the government. I thought it was Al Gore running the Internet from his garage, no? :-) Regards, -sm
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-) Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping? Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of others into account in that selection. He was not elected, nor does he speak for the IETF; ditto for Bernard. If they wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine. If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow represent me or any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive.
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. In a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74519.html the IETF Chair mentioned that: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab at iab.org and the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. The subject line of that message says Last Call. The wording used (send strong objections) is uncommon. The period for accepting comments is two weeks. There has been comments and some noise. Neither the IETF Chair nor the three Area Directors who commented attempted to stifle the noise. In some other community you can expect a reminder about AUP ( http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-August/025789.html ). Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, the IETF proposes to issue a press release. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. Yes. At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive. RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements. Regards, -sm
