Re: alternative to the spam filtering of the IETF's users

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

 



JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:

your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing. You managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should have just wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ... I'm sure that there's a lot of other people like me who would appreciate you actually saying something next time. Try actually saying something next time instead of waving your hands and saying "he's wrong."
training my spam filters on you,


This is typical of 50% of the reactions (no more :-) I privately receive and would like to positively build on it.

I think the yahoo comment is still (mostly) valid. Can you/anyone tell me, is all of this IPng, NAT, etc., mail leading anywhere, or is it just ranting and venting? If you and others can build something positive out of it (even if it's just Cisco releasing some box that supports IPv6 like Jeroen(?) requested), so be it, but so far it's more like, "I told you so." "No, I told *you* so."

This member actually perfectly understood the message I want to convey: the reason why Harald is right about IPv6 is the IETF disregard for the users ways. While what builds a network is not the way it is designed but the way it is collectively used.

When IETF Members spam filter users, they spam filter those who vote for politicians, do not buy IPv6 and make their living. They may make themselves happy but they fail their mission, waste their time and the time of billions. There should be another solution.

I accept I send hundreds of words: I wish I could avoid it and I have a proposition to spare you that. But in a globally users hostile arena, I am one of the very few users who survives your ways of thinking and working, and I never know what will hit who and when. Smoke screening suggestions of mine is also a way to give them a chance: this boring work pays back and has some real impact. Not as much as I wish, and this I would also want to change it.

My target is not like most of you that it works, it is smart, it follows the IETF core values or it makes a name of yourself. My target is that the final deliverable is societally, economically and politically the best and the most quickly globally accepted solution. IPv6, IDNA , spam, security ... show that this is not always the case.

In the case of IPv6, this debate has brought all the elements to understand the problem, to treat it properly and to fix it for a quick take over of IPv6. I do not care if my contribution pleased or not: I brought to some third party analyzing the whole threat some more elements necessary to conclude I brought them in a users manner: in saying "this is not what I want" and "this is what I want", what you may understand as "you are wrong" when you do not want/plan to deliver what I want. This is in a non construed basis, because I am only representing some users. Because I am user and not a standardizer. Because it would prevent suggestions to be picked as belonging to an objected global picture. But sometimes I detail solutions users might put together, often with an entirely different vision, what makes them disregarded until they happen a few long years later.

I said that I had an alternative solution. That solution is a Users Task Force to organize as an IETF entity. Its purpose is to be consulted in the course of the Internet standard process. Every user will be able to come and discuss needs and demands (not solutions). It will be open to consumer organizations, governments, corporations. This exists on a very specific issue which is the gTLD as the ICANN GNSO - and is blurred by political and opinion chitchat. Users can spend 24/366 a day on the internet and never come across a deliverable of a gTLD. They are confronted all the day long to IETF deliverables. I am an example of the "user pollution" of the IETF and the mail I respond to is a perfect example both of the users and of the IETF problems.

We are reorganizing the IETF. Let add a paragraph about a Network Usage Task Force and the NUTS (Network Usage Technical Specifications) expected from it, as a guidance similar to the requests to IAB. And let stop talking about "trolls" (everyone is someone else's troll): let just ask them to join the NUTF and let benefit this way from everyone's input. But in a construed way, in being sure it is the real market consensual demand. When IAB calls on Gov's funding (RFC 3869) it is typical to see that the priorities are IETF priorities, not the world's priorities.

Multilingualism is probably to be the leading issue in the years to come. This is acknowledged quite everywhere now. Yet RFC 3869 does not even allude to it. This can be understood as the impact on the network architecture may be dramatic and the perceived requirements so contradictory and complex to understand in a predominant ASCII culture. But to get Gov's financial sponsoring, IAB has to talk about what they are interested to fund. This dead-end situation would be solved more easily if there is were a forum where Govs and all may discuss, understand and present a construed and maintained demand.

I have worked for that in the @large field and I am ready to help setting this up. I know how organize it and to fund it (through what we need : market studies and questionnaires add-ons to be sold to manufacturers and press which also makes an perfect reach-out program: to listen to the people for what is to be their daily life tools).

Otherwise, this will be organized by the ITU (they already have it by Govs and major Telcos only - and now is the time it is decided through the WSIS). ITU will progressively take IANA functions. Standards will increasingly be designed at the ITU-T. And IPv6, IDNA, spam and critical risks will have been the X.500 of the IETF. We cannot avoid to work with the ITU because they gather the main users of the IETF deliverables. But we can do it in our terms and in terms more acceptable to the users. So everything works better, what ITU is also interested in.

This means that the users demand is considered at the source of the IETF thinking, not as an ITU-T filtering of its deliverables. This also means that we want an ITU I-Sector to interface and support the Internet/Intelligent Continuity world and plan for a Content and Service oriented NGN, not only smart bandwidth. ITU-T is a low layers oriented organization, we it at its proper place and to prevent confusion.

IPv6 is a good example: the IETF deliverable is OK (again Harald is right). But the main deliverable for the user is a worldwide, Gov accepted, numbering plan structure. IPv6 is built to be quite transparent to numbering plan structure. So the ITU-T is the blocking factor. Should that have been discussed and identified by the NUTF:: instead of "get[ing] the hell out of the way", ITU-I or ICANN (as now IANA is an ICANN function disputed by ITU) would have discussed in a joint conference with ITU-T a long ago and permitted the IETF to continue working on a real life universal IPv6.

Or, I will continue :-)


--
~Randy

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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