At 16:52 06/02/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To create open technical standards and identify best practices that are
useful to and
adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large
Along your lines, what about:
"To propose open technical standard and identify best practices striving
On 10-feb-04, at 1:37, Dean Anderson wrote:
To work with suppliers, consortia, and other standards bodies
to
develop consensus and facilitate interoperability.
So how does "the IETF" do this? Talking to others only works in a
top-down organization, but not in a bottom-up organization. I
Ok, here is a revised version with the current feedback.
This is the section from the ANSI Mission statement:
Due Process. All objections shall have an attempt made towards their
resolution. Interests who believe they have been treated unfairly shall
have a right to appeal.
It seems that
At 03:49 PM 2/4/04 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
I propose the following as a
mission statement for the IETF:
IETF is a technical protocol standards organization. Its principal
goals
are:
To create open, technical
standards that will be useful to and
adopted by the world internet communti
much as i hate "me too" messages, i think joel makes a good point.
cheers,
gja
"Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
>
> I do not think "appeals" belongs in our mission and vision statement. They
> are a mechanism to achieve openness and accountability, not the purpose of
> the organzation.
>
> Yours,
> J
I do not think "appeals" belongs in our mission and vision statement. They
are a mechanism to achieve openness and accountability, not the purpose of
the organzation.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 01:47 PM 2/5/2004 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
How about this:
To provide a fair and open process whe
% How about this:
%
% To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
% believes it has been treated unfairly has the opportunity to appeal.
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over
Methinks this needs a bounds check.
--bill
Opinions express
How about this:
To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
believes it has been treated unfairly has the opportunity to appeal.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, james woodyatt wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2004, at 12:49, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > To provide a fair and open process whereby
On 04 Feb 2004, at 20:59, james woodyatt wrote:
On 04 Feb 2004, at 12:49, Dean Anderson wrote:
To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
believes
it has been treated unfairly has the right to appeal.
I'd prefer this:
To use a fair and open process, even in the reso
On 04 Feb 2004, at 12:49, Dean Anderson wrote:
To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
believes
it has been treated unfairly has the right to appeal.
I'd prefer this:
To use a fair and open process, even in the resolution of disputes,
in which any person
Thanks Dean - this collection was actually quite informative!
Harald
--On 4. februar 2004 15:49 -0500 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Openness. Any materially affected and interested party has the ability to
participate.
Balance. The standards development process should have
> Fred Baker wrote:
> > Let me try to say all that succinctly:
> >
> >"The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a forum for the
> >discussion and development of white papers and specifications for
> >the engineering issues of the Internet. This discussion builds on
> >hard less
I propose the following as a mission statement for the IETF:
IETF is a technical protocol standards organization. Its principal goals
are:
To create open, technical standards that will be useful to and
adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large.
To identi
I think it's on track, as a description of the "common interest"
(a phrase someone used earlier).
I'm still itching for something that acts as a delimeter -- how
do we know whether we, collectively, should be working on X or
ignoring Y? How can we know when we are "succeeding" at our
mission?
Hara
and had RADB objects.
It seems to me that denying my participation in the RADB may be a
violation of IETF/ISOC/ICANN rules. And this should be redressed.
Thanks,
Dean Anderson
CEO
Av8 Internet, Inc
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Dean,
>
> the subject of the IETF m
At 11:07 PM 1/29/2004, jfcm wrote:
This puts free softwares and new generation networks out of its scope.
They are Research from what I understand. Why not?
I don't think the IETF tells people how to charge; the software can be free
or not. I don't think the IETF cares, and I don't know that bein
Dean,
the subject of the IETF mission is not particularly relevant to bashing
NANOG policies, or personal attacks on persons for their activities within
NANOG.
Nor are personal attacks appropriate on the IETF list.
If you want to quarrel about NANOG topics, at least change the subject.
Or
>
> Thinking out loud here, plenty of room for all to chime in. The key
> differences, if there are any, between IETF and NANOG and her sisters, and
> between IETF and IRTF, are:
Nanog should not be compared to the IETF. Nanog is a forum that has
promoted ignorance of the law or perhaps even t
Dear Fred,
you formulated this with real majesty. Good. IETF is a wise
men pow wow where users are represented by vendors and
its favorite matter is datagram internet scalability.
This puts free softwares and new generation networks out of
its scope. They are Research from what I understand. Why no
At 12:46 PM 1/29/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote:
I'd like to come back to this point, and try a slightly different direction:
Fred Baker wrote:
"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and timely
standards for the Internet."
I think I would state it in these words:
"The Internet
I'd like to come back to this point, and try a slightly different
direction:
Fred Baker wrote:
"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely standards for the Internet."
I think I would state it in these words:
"The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a foru
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Braden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF Mission
> *> Is the standard for Informational currently that onerous?
>
>
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ...
> > then that's a problem we can fix without creating an indestructable I-Ds.
> > ...
[..]
> I have never failed to find copies somewhere
> on the net. Today the only aspect of an I-D that expires after
#x27;m not saying anything against WGs producing Informational RFCs.
I'm only pointing out that calls to have the IETF Mission Statement
"broaden the scope and quantity of documents to be published" suggest
ignorance of search engines or needs to have things endorsed by the IETF.
]
Bob Braden wrote:
>
> *>
> *> If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
> *> IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn't capture work
> *> well enough to be archived as an RFC then it ought to fade from IETF
> *> I-D storage.
>
> Grenville,
>
> Not a
On 1/19/2004 3:47 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>>> Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge
>>> as standards, and the fact that some working group chooses not to
>>> "capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of
>>> preservation. ...
>
>> Another appr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good grief.
I don't know that we're changing anything in what the IETF does. What is
happening is that the IETF is growing up and taking control of its own
destiny in a variety of ways, and trying to clean up its own processes. In
all the *other*
> > Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge
> > as standards, and the fact that some working group chooses not to
> > "capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of
> > preservation. ...
> Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs. That
> would provide a cleaner path for tangential documents that don't fit
> within existing charters, and would facilitate broader group review of
> independent submissions. Speaking for m
On 1/19/2004 1:01 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge
> as standards, and the fact that some working group chooses not to
> "capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of
> preservation. After all, the technical problems evol
*>
*> If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
*> IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn't capture work
*> well enough to be archived as an RFC then it ought to fade from IETF
*> I-D storage.
Grenville,
Not all important ideas enter the working gr
*> This means drastically lowering the standards for what can be published
*> as an RFC. (Note that this brings us closer to what RFCs used to be 15
*> years or so ago.) Another way to do it would be to simply archive all
I do not believe that it means lowering the standards at all, in
g
>> o If one is revisiting the old ideas, they will most likely prefer
>> mailing list archives (due to its descriptive nature) than RFC.
>
> Ummm, no. Most IETF mailing lists are pretty inaccessible to non-WG
> participants because no one ever summarizes ideas before WG last call.
...
> (not
- Original Message -
From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bob Braden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: RE: The IETF Mission
>
> let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant non-standards
> documents -- responsible position papers, white papers, new ideas,
> etc. -- become RFCs.
i.e. something like IPng white paper series?
On considering the feasibility ground, it is hard to standardize all
possible pet id
> Having your idea published isn't equivalent to having your idea heard.
of course not. most new documents in any series are ignored. very few
people other than professional propeller-heads in ivory tower actually
read every article in acm-sigcomm or every rfc that comes out or whatever.
(comput
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:13:48 GMT, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> independent (non-series) document, then havn't we achieved gutenberg's goal,
> doesn't everybody have their own printing press, and can't we either choose
> an existing refereed forum for non-standards work, or just self-pub
- Original Message -
From: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF Mission
> Is the standard for Informational currently that onerous?
I'm
> ... Another way of looking at this would be to create some sort of
> refereed track.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who shall govern the referees?) note that
for a long time, peter salus begged the Computing Systems readership for
articles, and usenix ultimately closed it down due to lack of
Bob,
I agree that many works of great value can be found in early RFCs. But
here's my question to you: if the focus is too much on standards, how do
we scale the process so that we can have great works that are NOT
standards? Clearly neither the IESG nor the IETF need be involved in
that pr
At 00:24 18/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
But it originates with a very real and very damaging operational problem,
that of BSD 4.1's predilection to TCP Silly Window Syndrome and an
operator's desire to minimize the impact of that on competing data traffic.
Dear Fred,
thank you for your inputs. You p
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 18-jan-04, at 23:17, grenville armitage wrote:
[.]
> > If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
> > IETF and be archived as an RFC.
>
> Really. What's the number for the GSE RFC again? Even current work such
> as draft-ietf-idr-as
On 18-jan-04, at 23:17, grenville armitage wrote:
Actually it's pretty much the same topic, as there needs to be a way
to
preserve drafts that are important in some way or another.
If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
IETF and be archived as an RFC.
Really. What's the
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
[..]
> Actually it's pretty much the same topic, as there needs to be a way to
> preserve drafts that are important in some way or another.
If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn'
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:39:51 PST, Bob Braden said:
> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea
On 18-jan-04, at 19:39, Bob Braden wrote:
So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs.
Sigh. Even more RFCs. Pretty soon we're going to need a 32-bit RFC
number space.
(Making Intern
At 11:50 AM 1/18/2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea to
> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea to me, but that is a
> different topic.)
I could
*>
*> Lets take an example. I have been involved in QoS work, and there have been
*> a number of specifications written on the subject; much of that started
*> with white papers, including especially
*>
*> 0896 Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks. J. Nagle.
*> Jan-06-1
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, grenville armitage wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the ambiguities you assert.
I think this is because you use the "narrow interpretation" (e.g., the
actual network deployment) of the terms -- which is fine. My problem
with that, though, is that people can have a "broad interpret
Hi,
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 04:26 AM 1/17/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
> >timely standards for the Internet."
>
> I think I would state it in these words:
>
> "The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a
I'm not sure I see the ambiguities you assert.
Pekka Savola wrote:
[..]
> - These are so overly broad statements that they're close to unusable
> UNLESS you believe IETF is just a rubber-stamping standards
> organization. For example, what constitutes "deploying networks"?
> IETF certai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 04:26 AM 1/17/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
>"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
>timely standards for the Internet."
I think I would state it in these words:
"The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a forum for
lability" deserves a place next to "interoperability"
as a long-standing tradition; but I'm fearful that -- as individuals --
we're attaching too many different definitions to it.
" It is important that this is "For the Internet," and does not include
"
Hello all,
Sorry for opening this obvious can of worms (well, I think it has been
opened a number of times, so the worms are probably already gone
now..), but when considering how the IETF needs to change, it's
obvious that we'll first (unless we just stick to the relatively
"safe" changes, like i
iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more detail -
> but we failed to get that finished.
So, I think we have to be careful about what we consider part of
the IETF mission, if we cannot get basic agreement upon the implications
of the mission statement.
> > On the o
6, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
>
>
> --On 24. oktober 2003 18:07 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
> >
> >> It is importan
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish
> draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more
detail -
> but we failed to get that finished.
I should probably get out more, but I wasn't fami
--On 24. oktober 2003 18:07 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Harald,
I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
It is important that this is "For the Internet," and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
real-world applications
Hi Harald,
I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
> It is important that this is "For the Internet," and does not include
> everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
> real-world applications, such as controlling street lights, but the
> IETF d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3
Harald> different other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:
okay, I very much like these descript
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 01:01:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> > Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
> > reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
> > although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. I
> The number of application protocols with the oomph to "break" the
> Internet is quite small
OK, I've gotta ask - how many times do we break the Internet before we
reverse this reasoning? (How many times is "too many"?)
(signed) curious
> The number of application protocols with the oomph to "break" the
> Internet is quite small
however, it's not safe to assume that it's zero. any new killer app that were
poorly designed could do it.
also, you might be underestimating the damage done by HTTP (1.0 or later).
l.
The present situation, in my opinion, the tail is wagging the dog. This
should be changed. The IETF mission should make clear what the
constituencies are, what the goals are, and what the priorities are, so
that the tail does the wagging.
It used to be that engineering and operations within
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
this is the result of an historical trust model, where people using
Christian,
we might be looking through opposite ends of this tunnel.
--On 16. oktober 2003 15:15 -0700 Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when
talking
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actuall
since both you and Scott pointed out this one
--On 15. oktober 2003 12:48 -0400 Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant,
and timely standards for the Internet."
I actually believe IETF has a somewhat wider purpose than that.
--On 16. oktober 2003 13:15 -0400 Eric Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in
making the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management.
Adopting this as the IETF's mi
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
> Trust model
> =
>
> Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
> the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
> this is the result of an historical trust model, where people using the
> Inte
elong on the Internet but street lights
> don't!
>
> thanks for making the most concise statement of the conflict here in
the
> discussion so far!
> I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when
talking
> about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil,
The example I'm thinking about involved predecessors to OpenGL.
As this example doesn't even involve communication over a network, I would
agree that it is out of scope. ...
[OpenGL example]
It's not that other examples such as X couldn't have used more network knowledge to
avoid problems (e.
Scoping is certainly used successfully as an argument at the WG level,
through the more common pronnouncement "that would require a change
to the charter.." Scoping aids WGs in being able to move the ball
forward in the direction of predfined goals, and hence is a process aid.
This is scopi
> From: Eric Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > Sheesh!--next you'll be telling us that you never heard the phrase
> > "out of scope" before last week.
>
> Sure I have. There's hardly a piece of work done by the IETF that someone
> hasn't claimed to be out of scope. It's just that the phra
> The gist of this comment is that someone developing a network
> application protocol ought to somehow get a blessing from the IETF.
> Reality check. Who got the IETF approval to deploy ICQ, Kazaa, or for
> that matter HTTP?
The fact that someone did something without the IETF's approval d
> Sheesh!--next you'll be telling us that you never heard the phrase
> "out of scope" before last week.
Sure I have. There's hardly a piece of work done by the IETF that someone
hasn't claimed to be out of scope. It's just that the phrase is not used
consistently. If we look at the his
Simon Woodside;
Yes, and towards a possibly more contentious application, see Voice over
IP. Lots of VoIP work is being done without involving the internet at
all. Used by telecoms for telecoms applications, where "best effort"
isn't good enough because it needs to keep working when the power g
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Eric Rosen wrote:
"The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely
standards for the Internet."
It is important that this is "For the Internet," and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a
> From: Eric Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
>
> If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
> IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
> 50% of them) needed to make the Internet wo
> That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
50% of them) needed to make the Internet work.
> There have been many things that the IETF
> From: Eric Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in making
> > the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
>
> In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management. Adopting
> this as the IETF's mission would be a
going to circulate a document under the subject
line "IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission", you should make it clear
that the IESG is proposing to make a complete change in the IETF mission.
Instead, you give the impression that the IESG thinks that "for the
Internet&
the most concise statement of the conflict here in the
% discussion so far!
% I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking
% about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about
% it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the is
Harald.
Interesting, important, thanks.
Internet usage
==
One of the large dynamics not explicitly mentioned is the increased
commercial usage/value of the Internet and how that drives the community
in new directions.
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is th
s point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about
it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the issue
forever, with nothing but wasted energy to show for it.
In the discussions leadin
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 01:01:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> > Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
> > reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
> > although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. I
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:48:37 EDT, Keith Moore said:
>
> I certainly don't believe "only" in rough consensus and running code -
> I also believe in explicit definition of goals and requirements,
> careful design by knowledgable experts, analysis, iterative
> specification, wide public review, etc.
> One would hope instead that the IETF would want to
> encourage competition between different views of Internet evolution, as the
> competition of ideas is the way to make progress.
what I would say instead is that the IETF should encourage this competition
within the sphere of architectural
Hi Scott,
> Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
> reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
> although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. It would
> be much more useful for you to reaffirm the fundamental
> principles that a
> "The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and timely
> standards for the Internet."
> It is important that this is "For the Internet," and does not include
> everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
> real-world applications, such as controlli
overall, I like the document. some comments:
> However, while Dave Clark's famous saying
>
> "We do not believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
>We believe only in rough consensus and running code,"
is this an accurate quote? I've usually seen it written
We reject kings, presi
es which are at the heart of the
organization and which the (pseudo-)consensus process doesn't get to
touch.
> The IETF Mission
>
>
> The IETF's mission has historically been embedded in a shared
> understanding that making engineering choices based on the l
It's an interesting document, but it looks to me a bit much
like a problem description and I'm not sure how it relates
to other existing work (the problem description document in
the problem working group, most obviously). I particularly
liked the discussion of the IETF mission - it cou
Alvestrand
For the IESG
The IETF Mission and Social Contract
Introduction
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open
international community of network engineers concerned with the
evolution of the Internet architecture and facilitating the
operation
94 matches
Mail list logo
