On 12:59 04/10/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
--On 1. oktober 2004 13:48 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I apologize for not having followed the debate over the IETF administrative structure as I should have probable done it . Dave's response seems to be the first I find interesting and illuminating (may be I lost others).
Is there a draft/wiki documenting all the IETF problems?
Jefsey,
have you read RFC 3716 ("The IETF in the Large: Administration and Execution") and RFC 3774 ("IETF Problem Statement")?
Dear Harald,
I apologize again about my Frenglish which lead to confusion. I had read quickly these RFCs when published. I retained the feeling that one dealt with the problems of interrelating with the existing IETF partners, and that the other was about the internal IETF life problems. But none about the real IETF problems. I then used the then image that one was about outside wall painting and the other about inside wall papers, but none about the walls themselves and about what they have been built for.
I reread them in detail. This is actually an impressive and honest work. The current thinking I give on issues which impact the architectural usage of the Internet helps me to see better how parts of this work may help. But I have an increased feeling they help in no way the current debate, and even make the discussion over different scenarii unreal.
To take back my image. I feel the discussion is : we identified that our four contractors have some requests about the cleaning of the road, the signs and the parking lot when coming to the house, how much they are paid and how to best understand what we tell them. We identified that the kids are not really happy with the wall paper, the overload of the parents, the TV show in foreign languages and other family life issues. So let discuss the tax relief in building a new house in stone or in wood, in McLean or in Geneva, may address the problem.
I am sorry. When I talk about "IETF Problem" I see it from an IETF's user point of view. This roughly means five things:
1. content, quality and usefulness of the deliverables (let first define them and discuss the demand, this will tell where the money will come from)
2. surety, security, stability, adequacy, scalability, sovereignty respect when using the IANA post-delivery services
3. currently missing deliverables (standardized code, missing functions, digital convergence, multilingualism, maintained documents, test beds, etc. etc.)
4. the interest for me to invest in using IETF deliverables. Will IETF foot the real digital ecosystem needs? or stay with the 1983 TCP/IP model? For how long? What is the contingency plan?
5. what about its competition? I observe usage architectures (P2P, used interphone, spam, "Pluggable Edge Viruses", etc.. come from els where. IETF does not foster competition. No alternative architecture worked on at SourceForge - a long long fight against alt-roots, a monopoly oriented IPv6 design etc.. I accept there may are good reasons for that but I worry that they have not been fairly and innovatively worked on.
This is why I considered Dave's mail as enlighting. I had the feeling he was not that much talking about "photographed problems" but about real users life problems.
But rereading this RFCs in this context, show the amountg of the work you engaged. I want to thank you for that.
But I am afraid reorganizing the 2004 IETF to better carry its 1986 job and redo the 1992 ISOC differently may not be the best target? The lack of consensus about the IETF purpose in life has been identified as a key problem. Should it not come before any possible rebuild?
And it is not just to say "write Internet documents". Some ideas about the deliverables of these documents is needed. The debate may start with the "core values" you quoted but is much, much more. At least IMHO.
Thank you for all. jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf