Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Greg Skinner]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
> >  Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
> >  a message of 32 lines which said:
> > 
> >> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
> >> asses every day and twice on sunday.  and that's the real problem
> >> here, i finally think.
> > 
> > Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?
> 
> What is defined as an 'end-user'?
> 
> You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.
> 
> That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things work and
> that we might have some connections to people so that we can arrange
> things, is nothing of an advantage over people who are not technically
> inclined (or how do you put that nicely ;)
> 
> The point is that those people don't know better and as such they also
> don't know what is possible and what they are missing.

Arguably, anyone can join the IETF, and represent themself.  However,
there is a steep learning curve, especially for those people who don't
have much if any technical background, in order to participate
meaningfully.

For example, I know of people who would like IP addresses to encode
physical locations such as the country and city, so they can use this
information to decide which ads to serve (or to block), or to enforce
DRM.  But if they come to the IETF lists and ask for this capability
(or why it can't be provided), at best, they'll be told that's not the
way things are done.  Instead, they go to companies that are willing to
sell them databases that presumably map IP addresses geographically to
a high degree of accuracy, at least to the country level.

> Eg, if you tell somebody "oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 at
> home and I can access all my computers from the Internet wherever I am",
> they will be going "and? why would I need that". The typical lay-man
> end-user really couldn't care less, as long as their stuff works.
> 
> The only people really noticing problems with this are hobbyists and
> most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup their own gameserver and
> finding out that they are stuck behind this thing called "NAT".
> 
> P2P people, thus quite a large group of people using the Internet today,
> have their tools to nice NAT tricks, thus these won't notice it.
> 
> And for the rest of the population the Internet consists of http:// and
> https:// if they even recognize those two things, thus most likely only
> "www" and "email", the latter likely only over a webinterface...

Actually, one could argue that this suggests that NAT is an
engineering success, even if it is architecturally flawed, because it
serves the needs of a majority of users, causes problems in only a few
cases, and isn't mandatory.  Users can get non-NAT access, depending
upon how much money and/or effort they're willing to expend. (Granted,
this doesn't take into account the arguments about how future
applications may be inhibited by NAT, or how certain security measures
are more difficult to enforce.)

> Which group do you want to 'involve' in the IETF and more-over, why?
> Last time I checked the IETF was doing protocols and not user interfaces.

I'd like to see the general level of user understanding of the
capabilities of Internet protocols raised.  However, I don't know how
this can be accomplished without a lot of effort on the users' parts
to come up to speed.

--gregbo

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

We are all end-users, the question is whether the work here should be more 
responsive to the needs of typical end users.

We have interminable discussions premised on the bizare assumption that the 
typical end user cares more about whether he has a /48 or /56 than whether his 
or her network works reliably, without fuss, supports the applications they 
want to use and does not make them artificially dependent on a particular 
service provider.

Equally you can be sure that in any discussion of a proposed change to the 
Internet that there will be someone who will come up with the equivalent of 
'but if we phase out use of UUCP that will cause systems which people rely on 
in remote parts of Africa to fail', and you can be sure that the person raising 
the objection 1) has never been to Africa, 2) has zero personal contact with 
anyone in Africa who has the issue he claims to be critical, 3) is entirely 
ignorant of the constraints under which Internet management in Africa operates, 
4) has some 30 year old UUCP installation that they want to keep running for 
personal reasons.


We used to have the same issue with accessibility. Some people would bring up 
accessibility in a similarly insincere fashion. By this I mean using 
accessibility as a debating maneuver without any real interest in meeting needs 
of disabled persons. 

That is rather harder today, first there are quite a few people in the IETF who 
have direct experience in those areas, either as a user or developer of 
accessibility technologies, second there is a whole accessibility effort in W3C 
that focuses on the issues directly.

So when folk object that using PKIX logotypes in certificates rasies 
accessibility issues with blind and partially sighted people I have a lot of 
resources I can draw on. I talk to the people concerned, take their input into 
account and come up with a (slightly) revised proposal.


I don't think it is actually very difficult to become an advocate for the 
ordinary user. Just decide to become 100% intolerant of network administrivia. 
When friends or relatives ask for help setting up their systems ask why the 
assistance is needed and how the network could be changed to make that help 
unnecessary.

Sit in on some usability tests for real products. It is quite interesting 
watching someone who claims tho be proficient in the use of certain network 
infrastructures actually using them to achieve what should be routine tasks. 


The User Interface itself may be out of scope for a protocol but the need for 
user interaction is not. In particular a protocol must provide the information 
necessary for the UI to function. A very large number of UI issues are really 
caused by poor architecture, lack of though given to error conditions is a 
major cause. In PKIX the protocols make the bizare assumption that every 
Internet user wants to become a trust engineer. This is better than the 
original assumption that PEM was based on but still too far away from the idea 
that everyone wants to have the choice of who they delegate their trust 
management tasks to.

> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:30 PM
> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: 
> mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
> 
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,  Paul Vixie 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote  a message of 32 lines which said:
> > 
> >> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
> >> asses every day and twice on sunday.  and that's the real problem 
> >> here, i finally think.
> > 
> > Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?
> 
> What is defined as an 'end-user'?
> 
> You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.
> 
> That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things 
> work and that we might have some connections to people so 
> that we can arrange things, is nothing of an advantage over 
> people who are not technically inclined (or how do you put 
> that nicely ;)
> 
> The point is that those people don't know better and as such 
> they also don't know what is possible and what they are missing.
> 
> Eg, if you tell somebody "oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 
> IPv6 at home and I can access all my computers from the 
> Internet wherever I am", they will be going "and? why would I 
> need that". The typical lay-man end-user really couldn't care 
> less, as long as their stuff works.
> 
> The only people really noticing problems with this are 
> hobbyists and most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup 
> their own gameserver and finding out that they are stuck 
> behind thi

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Why the IETF? Why not ISOC, an organization that has expertise and
> experience is asking such questions? ISOC already has local chapters
> throughout the world, ISOC has a friendly membership policy, and ISOC
> has good relations with the IETF for discussing proposed improvements to
> the Internet.

I founded an ISOC chapter some years ago among others to see how users
could provide input to the standards development process. However, there
is no mechanism to consult, collect and present such information in an
organized way.

You could say that, as an ISOC trustee, I would need to submit a
proposal to the board, and this is exactly what I intend to do. Keep in
mind though that those volunteers in chapters may expect that some
consideration and feedback is being given to their (sometimes non
technical) comments. If they are by default considered irrelevant,
hobbyist rubbish, this may kill the process in the egg.

Part of the goal of this discussion, for me, is to see how the IETF
community welcomes such a proposal. If I get the impression that it is
not supported, I won't spend more time on it.

Patrick





.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Paul Hoffman]

At 4:24 PM +0200 9/20/07, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

My proposal for the IETF would be to ask the actual users, large and
small, through different mechanisms to be defined, what are the issues
that limit their use of the Internet, see what is relevant to the IETF
work and assign priorities to the development of new standards.


Why the IETF? Why not ISOC, an organization that has expertise and 
experience is asking such questions? ISOC already has local chapters 
throughout the world, ISOC has a friendly membership policy, and ISOC 
has good relations with the IETF for discussing proposed improvements 
to the Internet.



--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Marc Manthey]

On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:

Daniel Senie wrote:

At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:

Interesting discussion.

I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.

One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150  
router

the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is.

They are end-users, all of them.
End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems  
and networking business for 25 years, I don't know what "TORify"  
means. Step back and look around. Getting more of us geeks  
providing "end user" feedback is not functional. That's how we get  
to having cameras, cell phones and most other electronics with  
user interfaces that non-geeks can't understand.


TOR is "The Onion Router".


hello  peter and Daniel,  all

i am using  openwrt / White russian for my test enviroment, i guess  
you mean this 


there is an impressive list of  software  for openwrt downloads.openwrt.org/backports/0.9/>


greetings from an enduser;)

marcM.

--
there's no place like 127.0.0.1
until we found ::1 -- which is even bigger

web: http://www.let.de___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Peter Dambier]

Daniel Senie wrote:

At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:


Interesting discussion.

I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.

One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is.

They are end-users, all of them.



End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems and 
networking business for 25 years, I don't know what "TORify" means. Step 
back and look around. Getting more of us geeks providing "end user" 
feedback is not functional. That's how we get to having cameras, cell 
phones and most other electronics with user interfaces that non-geeks 
can't understand.


TOR is "The Onion Router".

The people are afraid of the gouvernement spying on them, that is why
everybody is talking about anonymisation tools. Some people do provide
them for free.



We are not good models of the term "end user."




I guess you are right :)

Cheers
Peter and Karin

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
http://www.cesidianroot.com/



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Peter Dambier]

Daniel Senie wrote:

At 04:18 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:


Interesting discussion.

I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.

One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is.

They are end-users, all of them.



End users? Interesting. Though I've been in the software, systems and 
networking business for 25 years, I don't know what "TORify" means. Step 
back and look around. Getting more of us geeks providing "end user" 
feedback is not functional. That's how we get to having cameras, cell 
phones and most other electronics with user interfaces that non-geeks 
can't understand.


TOR is "The Onion Router".

The people are afraid of the gouvernement spying on them, that is why
everybody is talking about anonymisation tools. Some people do provide
them for free.



We are not good models of the term "end user."




I guess you are right :)

Cheers
Peter and Karin

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
http://www.cesidianroot.com/



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[michael.dillon]

> Over the last ten years, I explained a zillion times to my 
> management, workmates, etc. why e-mail addresses cannot 
> contain accented characters, only to be asked when the IT 
> department of the organization is going to "fix it". This is 
> the archetypical example of an issue that has been known 
> since the days of RFC821/822. Yet, work to address this has 
> only started a year ago, although I am conscious there were 
> some intermediate step needed, like Unicode.

For this to work, we need a way to display that address on
devices which do not have the complete set of Unicode glyphs
installed. And we also need a way to display a representation
of the address that can be used to unambiguously input the
address on a device which does not understand the full set
of Unicode glyphs.

This was discussed a couple of days ago in this message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47925.html
regarding deprecating RFC 1345 because it is the wrong solution
to the problem.

In fact, it may be necessary to attach a language tag (defined 
in RFC 4646 and 4647) to these addresses in order to make this
fully possible. For instance, there is a Norwegian mans' name
which is usually written Hakon in English. In Norwegian, the 
letter a is written with a small ring attached to the top. This
ring represents that the name is pronounced more like Hokon than
Hakon. Nevertheless, it is standard for people to us a double a
to represent this glyph (a-ring) when writing Norwegian with
devices which do not have the a-ring glyph. But Haakon is even
more misleading to English eyes.

In order for an email display and entry device to fully make sense
of addresses which contain a glyph not available on the device,
it may be necessary to know both the language tag of the device
user, as well as the language tag of the address.

I'm sure that many people are working on this problem, but most
of this work is happening outside of the IETF. Perhaps even in 
commercial ventures like Mozilla's new email company,
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/mozilla-2007-09-17.html

--Michael Dillon


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Patrick Vande Walle]

As the original blog poster, let me answer and expand a bit:

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> What is defined as an 'end-user'?
> You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.
>   
>From those one billion Internet users, there are several millions IT
professionals who do not participate in the IETF work either because
they are not inclined to, or because their  employer does not see which
return such time investment would bring to the company. They provide
services to millions of end users and they are confronted on a daily
basis with issues that could be addressed by enhancing or drafting new
standards.  These people have the knowledge. They are not "hobbyists".
Over the last ten years, I explained a zillion times to my management,
workmates, etc. why e-mail addresses cannot contain accented characters,
only to be asked when the IT department of the organization is going to
"fix it". This is the archetypical example of an issue that has been
known since the days of RFC821/822. Yet, work to address this has only
started a year ago, although I am conscious there were some intermediate
step needed, like Unicode.

Please don't ask me to complain to my software vendor. At best, I am
being told that their software is standards-compliant. So, if the end
user/customer cannot get the supplier to proactively propose new
standards, there has to be a way to escalate the issue to whatever body
that can solve it.

My proposal for the IETF would be to ask the actual users, large and
small, through different mechanisms to be defined, what are the issues
that limit their use of the Internet, see what is relevant to the IETF
work and assign priorities to the development of new standards.

As for the average end user: I am sure that my grandfather would have
liked to be able to type an e-mail, including recipient names, with
accented characters.  He was already able to do so for letters and
envelopes on his typing machine in the 1920's.  My neighbour may not
know what an IPv6 /64 is. He may however understand that he will have a
lot of home devices connected to the Internet on his home network in a
few years from now, and this may require some segmentation, which a /64
does not provide. Actually, I hope my neighbour will never have to know
about these details, and that his home router will figure this out
automatically.

Patrick Vande Walle


-- 
Patrick Vande Walle
Check my blog at http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
Jabber me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Peter Dambier]

Interesting discussion.

I am envolved in two groups develloping around OpenWRT.

One group (some 2000 members) is trying to TORify a < dollar 150 router
the other group (some 30 members) is trying to IPv6 that very same
software. I dont know how big the OpenWRT devellopers group is.

They are end-users, all of them.

They use a large range of hardware that mostly has its own unuseable
software.

e.g. dtag.de // t-online.de

they use a branded AVM router with outdated software and a backdoor
to remotely manage the box. I dont know if they really manage - but
I can see they have disabled port 8085 just in case.

AVM is as famous for routers in germany as Mircrosoft is for PCs.
I dont mean the pubo-coccygeus muscle :)

AVM software seems to be better but the brands see no maintainance.

Our gouvernement is very hot on talking about poisoning every router
and every PC to listen into our VPNs and local harddisks. So nobody
who has got a brain wants to rely on the original software.

I guess it is a good idea to get those end-users envolved.

Cheers
Peter and Karin

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
http://www.cesidianroot.com/


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [SPAM] Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Lynnold M Wini]

My very first contribution to this mailing list - pardon me, I am 
nervous  :-) .


I agree  with suggestion that it would make more sense to improve 
linkages "to the OPERATOR community (e.g.NANOG)" as opposed to the end-user.
I follow the discussions on this forum but admit that although 
technically inclined, sometimes these discussions are simply beyond me 
and I tend to think that the focus is so much on the needs of the 
developed world that hardly anything is relevant nor takes the Pacific 
situation into consideration.


Having said that I  believe if IETF were to pursue improved linkages 
through the OPERATOR community, in our case PACNOG - it would generally 
improve our knowledge on what is happening within IETF as ultimately the 
decisions made at this level affect everyone (end-users) using the Internet.


The onus, of course, would be on us (in the pacific) to build our 
capacity to comprehend and actively participate in IETF processes, but I 
agree the operator community would be a great starting point.


Lynnold M Wini

Solomon Telekom Co Ltd
Honiara,
Solomon Islands

Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The 
reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch 
between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN 
does or should be doing. 

The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "political 
science" folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international
travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how 
irrelevant their topic is.


The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of 
the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. 
NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from

my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet "end-user".

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
  

Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind
it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do
any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount
of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


  
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

I'd be careful about using the ICANN/ALAC example as proving much of 
anything other than if a group wishes to set up some window-dressing so it 
can say users are consulted, and ensures that the users have no particular 
influence in the group's activities (compared to every other represented 
interest group), that then you get an ineffective outcome.


I'd expect that in the unlikely event the IETF were to go down this road, 
they would actually use Internet tools to organize people and discussions, 
and that the process would be colored with far more good sense, good faith 
and good will.


That doesn't mean it would work or that you should do it -- the obstacles 
are real and serious -- just that I don't think you can generalize from a 
process, the ALAC, that was not engineered to work so much as to generate 
good news coverage.  Indeed, ALAC is there because there was some powerful 
end-user representation in ICANN 1.0, and the powers that be didn't like 
the Mensheviks.


On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:


At 10:11 PM +0200 9/19/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?

http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/

(My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero
organisation of end-users at this time. ALAC, mentioned by Vande
Walle, is a complete failure.)


Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put 
behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF 
would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the 
huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on 
technical matters?


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



--
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |Professor of Law|   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
   -->It's warm here.<--

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Ole Jacobsen]

I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The 
reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch 
between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN 
does or should be doing. 

The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "political 
science" folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international
travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how 
irrelevant their topic is.

The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of 
the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. 
NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from
my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet "end-user".

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind
> it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do
> any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount
> of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters?
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Jeroen Massar]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
>  Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
>  a message of 32 lines which said:
> 
>> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
>> asses every day and twice on sunday.  and that's the real problem
>> here, i finally think.
> 
> Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?

What is defined as an 'end-user'?

You, me, the rest of the people, are all end-users IMHO.

That we might have quite a bit more knowledge on how things work and
that we might have some connections to people so that we can arrange
things, is nothing of an advantage over people who are not technically
inclined (or how do you put that nicely ;)

The point is that those people don't know better and as such they also
don't know what is possible and what they are missing.

Eg, if you tell somebody "oh but I have a /27 IPv4 and a /48 IPv6 at
home and I can access all my computers from the Internet wherever I am",
they will be going "and? why would I need that". The typical lay-man
end-user really couldn't care less, as long as their stuff works.

The only people really noticing problems with this are hobbyists and
most likely the gaming crowd trying to setup their own gameserver and
finding out that they are stuck behind this thing called "NAT".

P2P people, thus quite a large group of people using the Internet today,
have their tools to nice NAT tricks, thus these won't notice it.

And for the rest of the population the Internet consists of http:// and
https:// if they even recognize those two things, thus most likely only
"www" and "email", the latter likely only over a webinterface...

Which group do you want to 'involve' in the IETF and more-over, why?
Last time I checked the IETF was doing protocols and not user interfaces.

Greets,
 Jeroen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Representation of end-users at the IETF (Was: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Paul Hoffman]

At 10:11 PM +0200 9/19/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

Time to have a formal representation of end-users at the IETF?

http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/how-can-the-engineering-community-and-the-users-meet/

(My personal worry about this proposal is that there is zero
organisation of end-users at this time. ALAC, mentioned by Vande
Walle, is a complete failure.)


Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort 
put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think 
the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the 
long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have 
been better spent on technical matters?


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf