--On 15. april 2002 19:55 -0700 todd glassey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Harald - what is the IETF's policy on this question.
>
> How many of any one protocol will the IETF allow to be push through to
> standard. And the IESG? Is it that there is only one standard for each
> type of protoco
We'd be very foolish to have a "policy" on this. It all depends on the
particular case, and sometimes it's better to let Darwinian selection
make the choice. Sometimes (as for IPvN) it is clearly required to
make a choice in advance.
This is not an official answer.
Brian
Harald Tveit Alve
My personal opinions on the matter of "when should we allow multiple
protocols for the same thing" are roughly:
1) No hard and fast rule will work. This is something the relevant ADs,
and sometimes the whole IESG, must judge.
2) It is reasonable to allow two (or even more) protocols when they h
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
>
>
> --On 15
> then who makes that decision? You or the WG Chairs? The AD's???
The IETF as a community, depending on rough consensus. If the rough
consensus is that there will be multiple protocols, then then there will be.
If not, then not.
Rough also means not everyone will agree with the decision.
> But
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 10:46 , todd glassey wrote:
>> - In the OSPF vs IS-IS discussions, we decided to pursue two
>> approaches.
>> Both survive, with little apparent harm to the community.
>
> And they both offer cricital boundry routhing capabilities - and most
> Router
> manufactu
ECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
> > then who makes that decision? You or the WG Chairs? The AD's???
>
> The IETF as a community, depending on rough consensus. If the rough
> consens
> The IETF picked OSPF. Certain vendors pushed IS-IS onto large ISP
> customers, during the mid-90s, in part to give themselves a proprietary
> advantage (at the time only 1 or 2 vendors had a solid IS-IS
> implementation).
puhleeze! is-is worked at scale. ospf did not. heck, when most
large
>What is the case is
>that each WG Chair gets to decide what concensus is for their WG
Not really; they can be overruled or replaced.
>The problem with the operations is that the rules change form group
>to group and this has serious technical and financial implications for
>anyone trying to mo
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> [...] I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic. [...]
This is a matter of politics, philosophy and economics (PPE). Asking
engineers to comment on such things is nice-- we're so often left out of
such disc
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 01:23 , Randy Bush wrote:
> puhleeze! is-is worked at scale. ospf did not. heck, when most
> large isps were starting (late '80s and early '90s), ospf barely
> worked at all.
Randy,
Your statement is true for at least one vendor's OSPF, but clearly
not
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 01:01 , todd glassey wrote:
> The problem James is that this is just not the case. What is the case is
> that each WG Chair gets to decide what concensus is for their WG and
> that is
> wrong.
It is the role of the WG chair(s) to determine rough consensus. If on
There is also a "speed of convergence" issue: For a new area with little
operational experience, one might want to eventually have one solution,
but there is no technical way to objectively arrive at a single answer,
given the set of participants and knowledge available, as the weight of
the engin
quot;Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:20 AM
> Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
>
>
> > > then who makes that decision? You or the WG Chairs? The AD's???
> >
> Note that none of your pushback contradicted my main claim,
> which is that IS-IS is not an *IETF* standard of any sort.
Examination
> of any accurate rfc-index.txt will confirm this.
Fine, but Randy is also right when he points out that just because a
spec is not an IETF standard does no
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 02:43 , Christian Huitema wrote:
> Fine, but Randy is also right when he points out that just because a
> spec is not an IETF standard does not mean that the spec is proprietary.
Christian,
As deployed IS-IS is not fully documented *anyplace*. What is
act
*>Now the original point was someone else's inaccurate claim that the
*> IETF
*> let both IS-IS and OSPF bloom, when really the IETF originally chose
*> OSPF --
*> and IS-IS made a separate come-back in the deployed world during the
*> mid-90s.
Yes -- except for historical a
>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 01:01 , todd glassey wrote:
>
> > The problem James is that this is just not
Ran,
> Proprietary is a commonly used term to describe something that does
>not have a full, complete, and open specification -- which is the
>current state of IS-IS. Now folks (including me) are trying to fix
>that issue by publishing sundry non-standard RFCs on how the as-deployed
>IS-
>this is a standards
>organization and not a place where we decide who we like and which of
their
>projects we are going to allow to come through us today and not.
>
>That's not the way any other GLOBAL standards orgs work.
Which globe are you talking about? On this one, that's *exactly* the way
>IS-IS as deployed on the Internet is an interesting case. It is clearly
>open and is not proprietary, but as you point out there is no complete
>specification. I don't think we have a term for this combination :-)
Yes, we do: "proprietary". It's a jargon term for standards development;
lo
Bob Hinden wrote:
> Ran,
>
>> Proprietary is a commonly used term to describe something that
>> does
>> not have a full, complete, and open specification -- which is the
>> current state of IS-IS. Now folks (including me) are trying to fix
>> that issue by publishing sundry non-standard
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 04:39 , todd glassey wrote:
> Ran you hit it on the head - "Your milages varies..." - this is a
> standards
> organization and not a place where we decide who we like and which of
> their
> projects we are going to allow to come through us today and not.
> I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic.
IMHO: IETF has limited resources, and as such, it cannot investigate
every solution that someone might propose for every problem that
exists or is thought to exist on the Internet. IETF leadership
has to choose where to invest those r
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:48:03 EDT, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >IS-IS as deployed on the Internet is an interesting case. It is clearly
> >open and is not proprietary, but as you point out there is no complete
> >specification. I don't think we have a term for this combination :-
> No, the problem with IS-IS is that the spec *IS* 100% open, including
> the non-existent parts.
that's why so few folk run it. only the vast majority of the largest
providers. running code.
randy
]>
Cc: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
> On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > [...] I'd like to hear the IETF
ssey
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
>
>
> --On
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:02:08 PDT, todd glassey said:
> Actually James you have to a big extent hit the cause of the problem on the
> head. The IETF is still predominantly Engineering Staffers and the Internet
> has evolved to a point where it now needs Commercial input too. The lack of
> commerci
t could understand and work with, and that's our shortcoming,
not
> the rest of the world's.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "james woodyatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECT
*>
*> The problem as I see it is that the Engineer (or child) in us is frightened
*> by this, since traditionally the commercial folks (the adults) have driven
Unbelieveable arrogance. You have the roles confused. Children say,
"I know what I want, and I want it NOW! [And I don't care a
todd, and fellow ietf participants--
I don't want to eat too much bandwidth on the IETF Discussion list, so
this followup will be my last contribution on the subject. I considered
not posting anything at all, but I feel motivated to clarify my views.
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 09:02 PM,
Bob - I will respond to this off list since my commentary is going to be
pretty acerbic.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Braden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: How
>At the risk of sounding either like a reactionary or a
>counter-revolutionary (you pick), I'll step forward to say that an
>engineer with no commercial interests is like a politician with no
>constituency. In other words: a monster raving looney.
Oh, I don't know; there's plenty of room for
>The way I see it: if you're an engineer, then you're-- by definition--
>interested in *useful* applications of science and technology. If it's
>useful, then it has commercial value.
In general, I'm not sure that follows. As an extreme example: a
sufficiently advanced piece of nanotech could
John Stracke wrote:
>
> >The way I see it: if you're an engineer, then you're-- by definition--
> >interested in *useful* applications of science and technology. If it's
> >useful, then it has commercial value.
>
> In general, I'm not sure that follows. As an extreme example: a
> sufficientl
>Or more practically, you'd probably want to sell a service based upon
>you're one implementation of that single instance. Just keep skimming
>from everyone's pocket to keep the fatted calf alive until the patent
>protection ran out
Yeah, I thought of that--but, with so much at stake, patents wou
communications protocols...
More inline below
Todd
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:
On Fri, 03 May 2002 06:57:45 PDT, todd glassey said:
> real-world for you... Letting a technologist blindly develop a protocol that
> is supposed to work in a commercial world is in my opinion more dangerous
> that allowing the salesperson to design a protocol for the technical world
> to solve
>
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:55 AM
To: todd glassey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
On Fri, 03 May 2002 06:57:45 PDT, todd glassey said:
> real-world for you... Letting a technologist blindly develop a protocol
that
&
>IMHO, people are people. Whether they are in sales or engineering or
>management or in
>Marketing or communication, it does not matter!!
When you ask someone to do a job, it does matter what job they know how to
do.
/===\
|John Stracke
ether they are in industry or in school!! Approach is the
key.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:55 AM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
>
>
learn and can
slack off. Persistence does help. So, does motivation.
-Original Message-
From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How many standards or protocols...
>IMHO, people are people. Whether they ar
dont feed the troll.
james
- Original Message -
From: "Sabharwal, Atul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'John Stracke'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: How many standards or protocols...
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail is
needed.
John Stracke wrote:
>
> >IMHO, people are people. Whether they are in sales or engineering or
> >management or in
> >Marketing or communication, it does not matter!!
>
> When you ask someone to do a job, it does matter wh
> Over in Detroit, they design cars. They do a *LOT* of market research.
> Market research may say that 75% of people interested in a certain model
> car would be interested in a rear spoiler - but it would be quite negligent
> to let the market researchers decide what size bolts to use to attach
volunteers. Welcome to the IETF :-D
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jan
Meijer
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
> Over in Detr
>Money money money... Is that what all these businesses think about?
That is what they're for. Criticizing companies for putting money first
is like criticizing animals for putting survival first.
Now, criticizing *society* for creating companies, and for not having
enough other ways to get t
>>The way I see it: if you're an engineer, then you're-- by definition--
>>interested in *useful* applications of science and technology. If it's
>>useful, then it has commercial value.
>
>In general, I'm not sure that follows.
I just noticed that the message I was replying to had come to me
49 matches
Mail list logo
