Todd, If you want anything done, you learn how things are done in the first place. When I participate in ISO/IEC meetings, I follows the principle of ISO/IEC. Standard progress are rigid but it does get things done systemically. And when I participate in IETF, I follows the principle of IETF - rough consensus and running codes. Each organisation will do what it always do. I dont expect ISO/IEC to be like IETF nor the reverse. No one is denying the existence of commerical interest, and many of us here have vary degree of that. But if IETF wish to consider that as a factor, it always could - thru rough consensus. If the rough consensus conclude that commerical interest is an important factor for that work/protocol, then it is. If not, then not. Your failure to convience the rest that your commerical interest is of importance to the rest of the Internet is not a failure of the IETF. It is your failure to gather rough consensus. IETF has never been a rubber stamping authority for commerical interest -- I hope it never will be. But if that is your goal for having a revolution, then I suggest you try to find some other organisation to do that for you. In fact, there are many organisation out there willingly eager to do so. ps: "Level playing ground" seem to be a favourite phrase of yours. Note that "level playing ground" is actually a by-product of having open standard, not the goal. -James Seng > 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 > commercial input into the IETF is clearly a statement of the IETF's concern > about being told what it can and can't develop... and to date the IETF has > long survived by saying "We know better, we are the technical gurus". But > this is inaccurate and a smokescreen these > days. > > My example of the IETF's warranting commercial involvement is a simple > statement in that there are essentially two types of protocols that are > being > developed in this forum these days that are outside the realm of new > developments like Wireless and new physical backbone protocols. The first > protocol types are additions and evolutions to existing routing and service > protocols, and for these efforts the current status and form of the IETF is > still adequate although it lacks documentation to validate their actions. > Still, it's probably OK for the existing IETF to manage these. > > The other side of the coin is different though. These are End-User Protocols > and now more than ever these need to be governed or certified by commercial > acceptance... before they get to the point of being a proposed standard. > > 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 > home that no matter how cool our inventions (or toys) are, there may in > fact be no commercial use for them... and they, in the interest of Business, > killed them (our toys) as such. What that meant is that the solutions we > had created were either too difficult to implement or not cost effective > relative to what they produced as a commercial service set ... > In other words, those efforts failed to meet the essential real world > practicality > standard. So in response to having our hands slapped, we as inventors and > engineers have shied away from a world where we would be called upon to > justify what we are up to. In other words, be held to the same > accountability standards that any other organizations (public or private) > are held to. We also see there is a way by creating these standards that we > can have power in the mortal's world as well. And acceptance as really > "special" geeks. That's why a lot of the IETF is operating the way it is > now. Or at least that's my take on it. > > To further this a bit, I also want to say we are at a point I think, where > this does not fly anymore. It's too complex to keep the boilerplate out of > the way; & the impact is much greater now. Because of these factors > it is time the IETF and IESG woke up and smelled the coffee as well as > to not only acknowledge but function with these realities in mind. > The bottom line is that it's time for the ISOC family of > organizations to become culpable for their actions and to put in place a > level playing field for all. > > > ---- > > The current problem the world faces is that an Internet Standard is > potentially worth billions of dollars. (see local exchange rates for details > on the > value in your own currency) and this now is a serious issue. It taints > everything > that the IETF does and participates in. > > And so in closing this rant I think its time to acknowledge that we need to > evolve a more formal and more user-participatory method of managing the ISOC > organizations. If the bodies are not there, then we need to recognize > that it's because we have failed in making this something that the average > participant could understand and work with, and that's our shortcoming, not > the rest of the world's. > > Todd Glassey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "james woodyatt" <jhw@wetware.com> > To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> > Cc: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>; <ietf@ietf.org> > 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 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 discussions. > > > > Here's what I think: asking this question is like asking, "how many > > units of currency and instruments of payment does the world need?" The > > answer depends on your theories of PPE. > > > > If I could measure the "sovereignty" of the IETF as a political > > organization, I'd say it's a function of 1) the value of the networks > > defined by the standard protocols it has produced to the present, and 2) > > the forecasted increase in value derived from the standards the world > > expects it will produce in the future. > > > > > The obvious (but meaningless) answer is "as many as needed". > > > > Please allow me to speculate that what the Chair meant to say was "as > > many or as few as will serve to optimize the present and future value of > > the Internet." > > > > The more interesting question is whether the IETF process is well suited > > to finding the right number of standards or protocols for any given > > purpose. On *that* subject, I will demure to wiser and older hands than > > myself. For now, anyway. > > > > > > -- > > j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com> > > > > > >