RE: Backdoor standards?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Thursday, January 13, 2022 08:00 +0000 Vasilenko Eduard
<vasilenko.eduard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It is not good to clean all other opinions out of the public
> availability, irrespective of IPR. It is the way to "there is
> my way and there is the wrong way". Of course, would be the
> people that would like to ban the opinions of opponents. Ed/

Ed,

Either I misunderstand your comment or you misunderstood mine.
I'm in favor of Mike's suggestion that we review some of these
things and see if we still believe them.  For me, that is more
about how much has changed in the Internet generally and IETF
specifically in, for example, the quarter-century since RFC 2026
was published and the even longer period since phrasing about
other groups publishing such drafts first appeared.  In that
time, we have eliminated the provisions about deleting expired
or "obsoleted" drafts (ones replaced by others) and made other
small adjustments, but there has never been a comprehensive
review of the (other) basic principles nor whether the current
policy toward those expired and/or obsoleted drafts (they are
probably two separate issues) is just right.

While I think that review would be healthy --having principles
and requirements that are not being followed and that few of us
believe is clearly a bad idea-- my personal view is that, if
changes are needed, they would be more about fine-tuning of what
to do about replaced specifications than significant changes of
direction and, in particular, handling of nominally expired
I-Ds. I think Carsten's "Baby/bathwater" comment is a little
exaggerated, but I share the concern.

More to your particular point, no one has suggested prohibiting
John Kunze and his colleagues (or anyone else) from putting
forth their ideas.  The discussion has been about documents that
preserve versions of those ideas that they might have discarded,
not about suppressing their current ideas.   For this long set
of drafts, I don't even see discarded ideas, only more details
and better explanations.  There is even an additional safeguard
for getting dissenting views into public sight: the RFC series
has been used to publish alternative to, and dissenting views
about, protocols and design choices since before there was an
IETF.  The principles behind that are close to what you
describe.  Even today, there is a process, called "independent
submission" for (among other things) publishing documents that
say, explicitly or not, "I think the IETF is wrong about this
because... and I have a better idea, which is...".  Current
procedures require drafts for such documents to first be posted
as I-Ds but, were the IETF to prevent doing that (something many
of us would fight very strongly), I assume the Independent
Submission Editor would quickly adopt a different procedure.

So, if we are actually disagreeing about anything --other than,
perhaps, the desirability of periodically reviewing old
decisions-- I'd like to understand how and about what.

thanks,
   john




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux