Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[IETF Chair]

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

[SM]

At 08:19 10-08-2012, 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


[snip]


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.


"Collective empowerment" sounds like a marketing term.  "contribute 
to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity" does not 
sound like something the IETF would say as it comes out as hollow words.


Regards,
-sm

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

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 standard, it is not
completely irrelevant but matters a lot more to the people in the
meetings than anyone else.

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.

ITU-T can certainly set themselves up a Friendship Games if they like
[1]. But they can't force people to show up, let alone implement their
'requirements'.

>From a censorship busting point of view, the best thing that can
happen for us is for the states attempting to gain control of the net
in their country to attempt to standardize their approach. Much easier
to circumvent fixed blocks than the current moving target.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_Games


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:19 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



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

RE: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Adrian Farrel]

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.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

[Bob Hinden]

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

[Eric Burger]

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 standard, it is not
> completely irrelevant but matters a lot more to the people in the
> meetings than anyone else.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ITU-T can certainly set themselves up a Friendship Games if they like
> [1]. But they can't force people to show up, let alone implement their
> 'requirements'.
> 
> From a censorship busting point of view, the best thing that can
> happen for us is for the states attempting to gain control of the net
> in their country to attempt to standardize their approach. Much easier
> to circumvent fixed blocks than the current moving target.
> 
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_Games
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:19 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

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  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 standard, it is not
>> completely irrelevant but matters a lot more to the people in the
>> meetings than anyone else.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ITU-T can certainly set themselves up a Friendship Games if they like
>> [1]. But they can't force people to show up, let alone implement their
>> 'requirements'.
>>
>> From a censorship busting point of view, the best thing that can
>> happen for us is for the states attempting to gain control of the net
>> in their country to attempt to standardize their approach. Much easier
>> to circumvent fixed blocks than the current moving target.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_Games
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:19 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
>>>
>>> 

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Brian E Carpenter]

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

[Alessandro Vesely]

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  
> 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 tele

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[SM]

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

[Randy Bush]

> 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

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Brian E Carpenter]

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

[Stephen Farrell]

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: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[GTW]

 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 do worry that it has to be accurate. And I do
believe that the specific text of the IPR section is not accurate, when
it comes to the IETF. And could be used against us because it is not
what we do.

Russ: Thank you, and I can tell you that those words are still under
discussion. The concerns that Cullen any you raised are representative
of a comment that I have already shared with the people trying to put
this to together

end clip

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138
- Original Message ----- 
From: "IETF Chair" 

To: "IETF-Announce" 
Cc: "IAB" ; "IETF" 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:19 AM
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.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

[Dave Crocker]

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

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, August 10, 2012 15:52 -0700 Eric Burger
 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 advanta

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

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: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: John C Klensin 

> 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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

+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  wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, August 10, 2012 15:52 -0700 Eric Burger
>  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 fro

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:51 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
 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

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, August 11, 2012 11:20 -0400 Noel Chiappa
 wrote:

> > From: John C Klensin 
> 
> > 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: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)]

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

[Paul Hoffman]

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

[Tobias Gondrom]

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

[SM]

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

[Michael Tuexen]

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

[Yoav Nir]

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

[Yoav Nir]

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

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: Yoav Nir 

> 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

[Scott O Bradner]

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: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Carsten Bormann]

On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner  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

[Allison Mankin]

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"  wrote:

> On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner  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

[Scott O Bradner]

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  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

[SM]

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: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Yoav Nir]

On Aug 12, 2012, at 12:06 AM, SM wrote:
>> 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.

In most western countries you can use TOR and wear a tinfoil hat. This might 
make some government agency suspicious, but they don't get to arrest you and 
question you about what you're hiding/

Yoav

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Bert Wijnen (IETF)]

I support that IETF and IAB chairs sign this document.

Bert
- Original Message - 
From: "IETF Chair" 

To: "IETF-Announce" 
Cc: "IAB" ; "IETF" 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:19 PM
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.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

[Abdussalam Baryun]

+1

AB

>>
>> 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

Metadiscussion [Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm]

[Brian E Carpenter]

Dave,

On 12/08/2012 17:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process
> because this is such a wonderful cause'.
> 
> It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing
> rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied
> manner that our management decides is sufficient.

Quite true. However, RFC 2026 lays down rules for standards track
documents, and extends them to IETF process documents by stating
that they are published as BCPs.

It doesn't lay down rules for actions such as signing a declaration
of common general policy with other SDOs*. In my opinion, it is
completely appropriate for the IAB, IESG and the IETF Chair to adopt
an abbreviated or adapted procedure for such documents.

* In fact, this type of thing seems to be in the IAB's remit, BCP 39,
section 2, clause (f) "External Liaison: ...other technical and
organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet."

Regards
Brian

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[ALAIN AINA]

On Aug 11, 2012, at 2:55 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.

+1

--Alain
> 
> 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

[Eliot Lear]

+1

On 8/11/12 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.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[GTW]

mber 2000, para. 20 and Annex 4.


George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138
- Original Message - 
From: "GTW" 
To: "IETF" ; "IAB" ; "IETF-Announce" 


Cc: "IAB" ; "IETF" 
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: 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 

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Jonne.Soininen]

Hi,

I think very strongly that IAB should sign this document.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Renesas Mobile


Tel: +358 40 527 4634
E-mail: jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com





On 8/11/12 1:55 AM, "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.pd
>>f
>> 
>> 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

[IETF Chair]

Thank you for the lively discussion.  Based on the great number of messages, I 
judge that there is rough consensus for the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair 
signing the Affirmation.  The Last Call asks for people to speak up if they 
have strong objections.  Despite the phrasing of the question, many people 
spoke in favor of this action.

A few people raised concerns about the process that lead to this document.  
First, Bernard Aboba, acting as IAB Chair, sent the statement out and asked for 
comment.  Then, the document was discussed in the plenary session on Vancouver. 
 Finally, on August 10th, I sent out the Last Call.  Comments sent in reply to 
Bernard's message and comments from the plenary discussion were addresses prior 
to the Last Call.

Here are the versions:
Asked for comment: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-4.pdf
Last Call: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf

This document is not intended for the standards track.  The IAB is considering 
publication as an Informational RFC to preserve the document in the RFC series.

Based on the comments received during the Last Call, one change is being made 
to the document.  The document said:

  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).

The Last Call raised a concern, asking for deletion of this phrase:

  (especially where open source is commonplace)

Based on the Last Call discussion, this change was recommended to the other 
signers.  This change was accepted, and this phrase will be deleted.

Thanks again,
  Russ Housley
  IETF Chair


On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:19 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

[IETF Chair]

The version with the phrase deleted is now available:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-16.pdf


On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:11 AM, IETF Chair wrote:

> Thank you for the lively discussion.  Based on the great number of messages, 
> I judge that there is rough consensus for the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair 
> signing the Affirmation.  The Last Call asks for people to speak up if they 
> have strong objections.  Despite the phrasing of the question, many people 
> spoke in favor of this action.
> 
> A few people raised concerns about the process that lead to this document.  
> First, Bernard Aboba, acting as IAB Chair, sent the statement out and asked 
> for comment.  Then, the document was discussed in the plenary session on 
> Vancouver.  Finally, on August 10th, I sent out the Last Call.  Comments sent 
> in reply to Bernard's message and comments from the plenary discussion were 
> addresses prior to the Last Call.
> 
> Here are the versions:
> Asked for comment: 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-4.pdf
> Last Call: 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
> 
> This document is not intended for the standards track.  The IAB is 
> considering publication as an Informational RFC to preserve the document in 
> the RFC series.
> 
> Based on the comments received during the Last Call, one change is being made 
> to the document.  The document said:
> 
>  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).
> 
> The Last Call raised a concern, asking for deletion of this phrase:
> 
>  (especially where open source is commonplace)
> 
> Based on the Last Call discussion, this change was recommended to the other 
> signers.  This change was accepted, and this phrase will be deleted.
> 
> Thanks again,
>  Russ Housley
>  IETF Chair
> 
> 
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:19 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: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Eggert, Lars]

On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden  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: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker  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: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker  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: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[SM]

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 

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Glen Zorn]

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote:

...


> 
> 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.


Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and
   standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased
   protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet,
   and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of
   privacy.

Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus and
the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical
sense of exaggerated self-importance ;-))
of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion
of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion
(unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's how it should
be.  


> 
> Regards,
> -sm 
> 


<>

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[SM]

Hi Glen,
At 23:13 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:

Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says


It was the Spring of 1995.  The place was known as Danvers.  That 
meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine.


Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus 
and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather 
typical sense of exaggerated self-


Yes.


importance
;-)
)
of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the 
opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under 
discussion (unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's 
how it should be.


Over the years the IAB and IETF have expressed a joint opinion on an 
issue through a RFC.That RFC is one of the significant ones as it 
dealt with the question of "export" grade security which was on the 
political agenda of the day.  Nowadays the IETF uses BCPs to express 
IETF Consensus.


Regards,
-sm <>

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Barry Leiba]

> 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 so sure.

It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing:
- The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
 He asked for comments.
- The IETF Chair announced updated text on 4 Aug, based on comments received.
- The IETF Chair made a last call on 10 Aug, running through 24 Aug,
noting that three organizations are approving this text (and that one
has already).  He asked for objections.
- A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of
support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two
objections on process grounds.

I presume that the IETF Chair will evaluate rough consensus on or
after 24 Aug.  As I see it now, consensus appears to be strongly in
favour of their signing it, with a valid process objection that has to
be addressed.

By way of addressing that, this IETF participant thinks that our
consensus process has essentially been followed.  Text was publicly
posted, comments were incorporated, a last call was issued, and
responses are being considered.  In the end, we seem likely to have
IETF consensus that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair sign the
document.

The parts that are not entirely as usual are (1) that the text was
publicly posted, but not in an Internet Draft, and (2) that the
community's ability to tweak the text has been limited.  That said,
both of those aspects are part of the public last call, and they have
gotten very limited objection.

Can you tell us where the above process fails in representing the
rough consensus of the IETF community, with respect to how we normally
express such consensus?  Can you tell us how what we're doing here is
"quite different" to our usual process (that is, "quite" different, as
opposed to very slightly different, with the difference having been
explained and due to the requirements of external interactions)?

Barry

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.


Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?

When did the community approve that change in process?



He asked for comments.


No he didn't:

 "Please send strong objections..."

This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by
establishing a very high threshhold for relevance.  While no, no one is
prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established.



- A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of
support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two
objections on process grounds.


Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support
statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent
a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the 
announcement.  We don't have any such documented history for this effort.


Would any of us guess that the community would support the document?
Sure.  But guessing isn't the point.

That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the 
announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our 
model is.  And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the 
last call wording...



d/

--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Barry Leiba]

>> It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
>> that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
>> the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
>
> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?

1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two.  If you want
to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion
would be considered.  You don't appear to be suggesting anything
constructive, though.

>> He asked for comments.
>
> No he didn't:

"He", being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did:
<< The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”.  Comments may be sent to
i...@iab.org. >>


I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive
suggestions about what we *should* do at this point.  Vague criticism
that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think?

Barry

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

On 8/12/2012 9:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.


Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?


1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two.  If you want
to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion
would be considered.  You don't appear to be suggesting anything
constructive, though.


1.  You think 3 weeks is "nearly" 4?

2.  The "Last Call" was issued on 10 August, not 1 August.

Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process 
because this is such a wonderful cause'.


It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing 
rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied 
manner that our management decides is sufficient.




He asked for comments.


No he didn't:


"He", being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did:
<< The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”.  Comments may be sent to
i...@iab.org. >>


It's always a bit disconcerting to see an AD misinterpret process 
details this way, especially when it requires changing the reference to 
something that wasn't a Last Call.




I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive
suggestions about what we *should* do at this point.  Vague criticism
that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think?


sigh.


d/


--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Stewart Bryant]

Dave

If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?

Stewart

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Paul Hoffman]

On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
> more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
> taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
> transferred by government decree to a secretive
> agency of the UN that runs by government majority.
> 
> Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?

Another possibility is that Dave simply wanted to start yet another process 
discussion, and he thought this was the appropriate time and thread for it. A 
corollary to Hanlon's razor is "never attribute to malice that which is 
adequately explained by bureaucracy".

--Paul Hoffman, whose support for the proposal remains positive

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Carsten Bormann]

On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant  wrote:

> If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
> more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
> taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
> transferred by government decree to a secretive
> agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

That is the question that is not clear to me either.

I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We should have 
a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, 
with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on.  This is a case 
where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an 
established one at all.  We do know how to run liaisons, which is probably the 
closest model to adhere to.  We know why we have handed the keys to this to the 
IAB.  (The present document is not prescriptive anyway, it is descriptive, and 
the IETF chair in concert with the IAB chair should be able to act on this 
level after a modicum of consultation.)

If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the 
current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.
As I said before, sometimes you have to act.

Grüße, Carsten

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Lixia Zhang]

On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Dave
> 
> If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
> more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
> taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
> transferred by government decree to a secretive
> agency of the UN that runs by government majority.
> 
> Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?
> 
> Stewart


Personally I do not feel the tone of this message is most appropriate in this 
ongoing discussion.

Lixia

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[SM]

At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote:

If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of the UN that runs by government majority.


Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with "a 
secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority".  The 
US has already stated that it "will not support proposals that would 
increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content" 
( http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/telecom/196031.htm ).


Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution ( 
http://political-prostitution.com/ ).  If the governments of the 
world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is 
their choice.  I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about 
Internet governance.  It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation 
supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in 
November.  I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard 
is to make pompous speeches.


At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We 
should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities 
that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even 
compromise, and so on.  This is a case where leadership is actually 
required, and I don't think that process is an established one at 
all.  We do know how to


The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities.

If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of 
the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.


A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions 
"collective empowerment" and doesn't want anyone to raise 
questions.  The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions 
as the sheep won't pursue the matter.


If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the 
person would only delay the outcome by about a month.  It would be 
somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the 
matter.  Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done.



As I said before, sometimes you have to act.


And play god. :-)

The following are selected quotes:

  "Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations,
   whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual
   property rules of the others."

The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the 
ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-)


  "Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations
   and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards
   that:"

The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants.  The 
IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment.


Regards,
-sm  

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected 
> a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.  Efficiency 
> suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.

At the risk of being at the top of the next "Narten" list, I can't help adding
that in the matter of liaison with other SDOs, our process formally states
that the IAB "acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
Internet Society". (See the same clause of BCP 39 that I cited yesterday.)

   Brian

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Alessandro Vesely]

On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this
>> area so I can't disagree with the possibility.
> 
> Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly
> disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the
> situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US
> related industries and most probably by every Government (including
> the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon
> market results, about the standards for the people they represent.

FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official
communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal
standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such
procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.  At the time, John
Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing
practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for
the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified
email, because of those governmental involvements.

[*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Abdussalam Baryun]

Hi Dave,

I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and
followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in
process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be
considered by IETF and IAB in the future.

thanking you for your comments,

AB
 --

 From: Dave Crocker 
 To: Barry Leiba 
 Cc: IAB , IETF 
 Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700

> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
>
> When did the community approve that change in process?
>
> No he didn't:
>
>  "Please send strong objections..."
>
> This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by
> establishing a very high threshhold for relevance.  While no, no one is
> prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless
> established.
>
> Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support
> statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent
>
> a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the
> announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this
> effort.
> Would any of us guess that the community would support the document?
> Sure.  But guessing isn't the point.
>
>
> That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the
> announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our
> model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the
> last call wording...
>
> d/
>
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
 wrote:

>...
> FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
> protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for
> official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving
> them legal standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief
> review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.
> At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more
> in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated,
> the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a
> unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of
> those governmental involvements.
> 
> [*]
>
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf

Alessandro,

Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of
comments above could easily be misleading.  

For the very specific case of email certified by third parties,
especially where there is a requirement for worldwide
recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the
biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and
policy one, not a technical standards issue.  We know how to
digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is
actually no shortage of standards.   While additional standards
are certainly possible, more options in the absence of
compelling need almost always reduces practical
interoperability.  Perhaps the key question in the certified
mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else
should pay attention.  The thing that makes that question
complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe
while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that
someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose
certificates that actually certified identity unless they were
an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government.

For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to
rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately
depends on your government being willing to say something to you
like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect
you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate".
If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still
have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign
government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble.
That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral
agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of
that is built into the postal treaties).  

International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can
serve an important role in arranging such agreements and
possibly even in being the repository organization for the
treaties.  In the particular case of certified email, the ITU
could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a
very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead
by building on existing foundations).

But that has nothing to do with the development of technical
protocol standards.  Historical experience with development of
technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then
try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and
has often included ludicrous results.

A similar example arises with the spam problem.  There are many
technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam
(especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of
mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those
protective mechanisms.  Some of them justify technical standards
that should be worked out in open forums that make their
decisions on open and technical bases.  But, if one wants to
prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third
parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement
problem, not a technical one.  If countries decide that they
want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders,
a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or
multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary.   As with the
UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or
forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not.  But it
isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be
able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a
clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies.

I do believe that the ITU can, and should, serve a useful role
in the modern world.  The discussion above (and some of the work
of the Development and Radio Sectors) are good illustrations.
But those cases have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with
the proposed statement, which is about the development and
deployment of technical protocol standards.

regards,
john

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Eric Burger]

+1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for Internet standards 
development. As John points out, there are potential uses of the ITU-T for good.

On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:50 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
>  wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
>> protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for
>> official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving
>> them legal standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief
>> review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.
>> At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more
>> in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated,
>> the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a
>> unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of
>> those governmental involvements.
>> 
>> [*]
>> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf
> 
> Alessandro,
> 
> Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of
> comments above could easily be misleading.  
> 
> For the very specific case of email certified by third parties,
> especially where there is a requirement for worldwide
> recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the
> biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and
> policy one, not a technical standards issue.  We know how to
> digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is
> actually no shortage of standards.   While additional standards
> are certainly possible, more options in the absence of
> compelling need almost always reduces practical
> interoperability.  Perhaps the key question in the certified
> mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else
> should pay attention.  The thing that makes that question
> complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe
> while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that
> someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose
> certificates that actually certified identity unless they were
> an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government.
> 
> For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to
> rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately
> depends on your government being willing to say something to you
> like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect
> you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate".
> If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still
> have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign
> government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble.
> That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral
> agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of
> that is built into the postal treaties).  
> 
> International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can
> serve an important role in arranging such agreements and
> possibly even in being the repository organization for the
> treaties.  In the particular case of certified email, the ITU
> could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a
> very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead
> by building on existing foundations).
> 
> But that has nothing to do with the development of technical
> protocol standards.  Historical experience with development of
> technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then
> try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and
> has often included ludicrous results.
> 
> A similar example arises with the spam problem.  There are many
> technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam
> (especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of
> mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those
> protective mechanisms.  Some of them justify technical standards
> that should be worked out in open forums that make their
> decisions on open and technical bases.  But, if one wants to
> prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third
> parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement
> problem, not a technical one.  If countries decide that they
> want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders,
> a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or
> multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary.   As with the
> UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or
> forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not.  But it
> isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be
> able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a
> clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies.
> 
> I do believe that the ITU can, and should, serve a useful role
> in the modern world.  The discussion above (and some of the work
> of the Development and Radio Sectors) are good illustrations.
> But those cases have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[ALAIN AINA]

I will say "there are potential uses of the  ITU for good".

--Alain

On Aug 14, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> +1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for Internet 
> standards development. As John points out, there are potential uses of the 
> ITU-T for good.
> 
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:50 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
>>> protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for
>>> official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving
>>> them legal standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief
>>> review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.
>>> At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more
>>> in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated,
>>> the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a
>>> unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of
>>> those governmental involvements.
>>> 
>>> [*]
>>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf
>> 
>> Alessandro,
>> 
>> Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of
>> comments above could easily be misleading.  
>> 
>> For the very specific case of email certified by third parties,
>> especially where there is a requirement for worldwide
>> recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the
>> biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and
>> policy one, not a technical standards issue.  We know how to
>> digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is
>> actually no shortage of standards.   While additional standards
>> are certainly possible, more options in the absence of
>> compelling need almost always reduces practical
>> interoperability.  Perhaps the key question in the certified
>> mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else
>> should pay attention.  The thing that makes that question
>> complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe
>> while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that
>> someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose
>> certificates that actually certified identity unless they were
>> an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government.
>> 
>> For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to
>> rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately
>> depends on your government being willing to say something to you
>> like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect
>> you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate".
>> If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still
>> have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign
>> government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble.
>> That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral
>> agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of
>> that is built into the postal treaties).  
>> 
>> International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can
>> serve an important role in arranging such agreements and
>> possibly even in being the repository organization for the
>> treaties.  In the particular case of certified email, the ITU
>> could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a
>> very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead
>> by building on existing foundations).
>> 
>> But that has nothing to do with the development of technical
>> protocol standards.  Historical experience with development of
>> technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then
>> try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and
>> has often included ludicrous results.
>> 
>> A similar example arises with the spam problem.  There are many
>> technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam
>> (especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of
>> mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those
>> protective mechanisms.  Some of them justify technical standards
>> that should be worked out in open forums that make their
>> decisions on open and technical bases.  But, if one wants to
>> prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third
>> parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement
>> problem, not a technical one.  If countries decide that they
>> want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders,
>> a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or
>> multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary.   As with the
>> UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or
>> forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not.  But it
>> isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be
>> able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a
>> clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies.
>> 
>> I do believe that the ITU can,

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[t . p .]

- Original Message -
From: "ALAIN AINA" 
To: "IETF" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:21 PM

I will say "there are potential uses of the  ITU for good".


Yes, they did a brilliant job in developing standards which allow
the proprietary phone network of one country to interface to
the proprietary phone network of another country, without
which we could never have had International Subscriber Trunk
Dialling.  Whether this is a suitable model for the Internet
seems doubtful to me.

Tom Petch

--Alain

On Aug 14, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> +1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for Internet
standards development. As John points out, there are potential uses of
the ITU-T for good.
>
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:50 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
>>> protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for
>>> official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving
>>> them legal standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief
>>> review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.
>>> At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more
>>> in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated,
>>> the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a
>>> unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of
>>> those governmental involvements.
>>>
>>> [*]
>>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf
>>
>> Alessandro,
>>
>> Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of
>> comments above could easily be misleading.
>>
>> For the very specific case of email certified by third parties,
>> especially where there is a requirement for worldwide
>> recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the
>> biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and
>> policy one, not a technical standards issue.  We know how to
>> digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is
>> actually no shortage of standards.   While additional standards
>> are certainly possible, more options in the absence of
>> compelling need almost always reduces practical
>> interoperability.  Perhaps the key question in the certified
>> mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else
>> should pay attention.  The thing that makes that question
>> complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe
>> while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that
>> someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose
>> certificates that actually certified identity unless they were
>> an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government.
>>
>> For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to
>> rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately
>> depends on your government being willing to say something to you
>> like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect
>> you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate".
>> If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still
>> have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign
>> government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble.
>> That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral
>> agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of
>> that is built into the postal treaties).
>>
>> International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can
>> serve an important role in arranging such agreements and
>> possibly even in being the repository organization for the
>> treaties.  In the particular case of certified email, the ITU
>> could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a
>> very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead
>> by building on existing foundations).
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with the development of technical
>> protocol standards.  Historical experience with development of
>> technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then
>> try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and
>> has often included ludicrous results.
>>
>> A similar example arises with the spam problem.  There are many
>> technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam
>> (especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of
>> mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those
>> protective mechanisms.  Some of them justify technical standards
>> that should be worked out in open forums that make their
>> decisions on open and technical bases.  But, if one wants to
>> prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third
>> parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement
>> problem, not a technical one.  If countries decide that they
>> want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders,
>> a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or
>> multilateri

Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, August 13, 2012 22:26 -0400 Eric Burger
 wrote:

> +1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for
> Internet standards development. As John points out, there are
> potential uses of the ITU-T for good.

Eric,

I'd narrow your first statement further and say "Internet
technical standards development" or "Internet protocol standards
development".  There are, at least potentially, other
categories.  Those at least mostly fall outside the IETF's scope
and there may well be useful work for the ITU to do in some of
them.  

I find it interesting that ISO and many of their Member Bodies
(including, fwiw, ANSI) make a careful distinction between
standards that have direct bearing on safety issues and other
types... and use different approval criteria for the former.
The IETF doesn't do safety standards (emergency reporting is
really not in that category) and I'm not quite sure what a
safety standard at the IP layer or above would look like (I can
imagine some at physical layer, but we don't do those either).
If there were such a thing as a safety standard involving
communications technology, I could imagine an ITU role there
(although I can't think of any examples for which ISO/IEC JTC1
would not be more appropriate).

I don't see that as contradicting the proposed statement in any
way although, if we had more opportunity to quibble about
wording, I might think some fine-tuning was in order.

john

VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Jari Arkko]

+1

 Alkuperäinen viesti 
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" 
Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden 
Kopio: IAB ,IETF 

On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden  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: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Carsten Bormann]

On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker  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: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Glen Zorn]

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker  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: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Michael StJohns]

Glen and others - 

I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF 
and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves".  I 
believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to 
the IETF.

I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and not 
the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies.  We randomly 
select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly from the 
set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that 
set of all participants.  I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using "elect" to 
describe that process.

While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto 
and de jure do speak for the IETF.  It's a subtle difference, but an important 
one.  [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the 
IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards 
process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.]

I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to 
have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not 
helpful.  We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+ 
years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward 
for generally accepted values of "forward".  Those ways include having granted 
the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and 
approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately 
approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a 
perception of consensus.  


We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and 
severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated 
to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of 
order.  Some of this is good for the process.  But we go too far way too often. 
 

In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs 
we've asked them to do.  Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the 
issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus.  I also believe it 
would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF 
Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.

I think it comes down to this:

If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here.

If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections, 
write an ID, and socialize what you want changed.   If consensus shows you 
correct, it will apply down the line.

If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to 
make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations.

If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance, 
make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you think you can 
do better or both.

We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a 
team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.  Efficiency 
suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.

Mike



At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>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: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Richard Shockey]

+1 Well said Mike.  For what it’s worth I completely and unconditionally
support the signing of the document on behalf of the entire IETF community.


 

This support is personal and does not represent any official position of the
SIP Forum its full members or its board. But if we were asked….

 

It is totally clear to me that the WCIT process represents a substantive
threat to the multistake holder process in standards development that has
made the IETF and the Internet work. What is horrifying to me as well is
this idea of mandatory ITU based protocol certification testing.   The ITU
has ZERO business imposing this requirement on nation states. Our Industry
deals with compliance and certification testing in its own way without
government sanctioned intervention. 

 

We’ve seen this class of threat before multiple times over the past decade.
Hopefully this will pass but it will certainly come up again and again.
Vigilance Vigilance. Though our focus has been pure engineering we cannot
ignore the forces building up to demand a return to some form of
intergovernmental control of global communications.  We won!  Now the forces
of darkness say .. well if it’s going to deal with SIP/IMS telephony ( voice
) well it has to be regulated! Right ..!!  Wrong .. 

 

Granted the European PTT’s are not helping here with totally absurd ideas
about abandoning the privately negotiated transit peering model with some
form of data sender pays abomination because they can’t figure out their
business models.  Now they first had  a Whine and Cheese party in Brussels ,
but getting no satisfaction there they now go to the UN to support their
untenable position. 

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org

 

 

From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael StJohns
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM
To: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

 

Glen and others - 

I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the
IETF and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than
themselves".  I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect
with respect to the IETF.

I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and
not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies.  We
randomly select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly
from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB
from that set of all participants.  I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using
"elect" to describe that process.

While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de
facto and de jure do speak for the IETF.  It's a subtle difference, but an
important one.  [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and
duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the
standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over
the years.]

I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends
to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not
helpful.  We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+
years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward
for generally accepted values of "forward".  Those ways include having
granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate
and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately
approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a
perception of consensus.  


We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and
severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items
delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single
point of order.  Some of this is good for the process.  But we go too far
way too often.  

In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs
we've asked them to do.  Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to
the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus.  I also believe
it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and
IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.

I think it comes down to this:

If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it
here.

If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your
objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed.   If consensus
shows you correct, it will apply down the line.

If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to
make that point, but give details rathe

Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Dave Crocker]

Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" 

...

(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: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>> Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
>> Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" 
> ...
>> (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: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Glen Zorn]

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> > Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
> > Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" 
> ...
> > (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: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

[Stewart Bryant]

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

Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We
> should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities
> that include the IETF

Why is it useful?  

As far as I know, this is the very first time we have had a problem
shaped exactly like this.  There have been other issues with different
sets of parties on other multilateral activities, but they appear to
have demanded a different kind of response, since that's what they
got.  It seems to me that we could better spend our energies working
on standards (using our actual standards development model rather than
the abstract approximation in the affirmation!) than in working up
rules to govern a circumstance that, we should all hope, will not
arise again in our lifetimes.  Not every single bit of human
interaction requires a process rule.  Some things just require
judgement, and I encourage "the leadership" -- people we put (via the
nomcom) into the position to exercise such judgement -- to do so.
 
Best,

A

PS: I have on purpose not commented about the proposed statement,
because the request was for strong objections, and I have none.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com

Re: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)

[Carsten Bormann]

On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:

> Why is it useful?  

Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and 
allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to 
share about the role and purview of our leadership.  (I'm not asking for 
another RFC, I'm just asking that we do consciously what we are doing, also so 
it may serve as a precedent.)

Grüße, Carsten

(This is likely my last message on this subject.)