On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > There are two strategies that make more sense and have more > chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to do: > lay out categories and boundaries that, if adopted, make better > information available to potential users/customers and provide a > foundation for regulation about what must be accurately > disclosed (as compared to what is required). That said, I've > been quite disappointed with the results of 4084: from the > comments and input I got before we did the work, I was > optimistic that we would see at least some ISPs, and maybe even > some regulators, pick the concepts and terminology up. To put > it mildly, it hasn't happened. > > The other approach, with thanks to Dave Clark for pointing it > out to me a few years ago, is to carefully write a neutral and > balanced document whose theme is "of course the Internet > architecture permits you do this, but, if you do, it will have > the following good and bad consequences which you should > understand in making your decisions". > > Either approach requires serious work and people on the IAB who > are interested, willing, and have the skills to do it. I can't > speak for the current IAB at all but, if the sort of output Tony > and I are talking about is wanted, then people need to tell the > Nomcom(s) that the ability and willingness to generate it should > be an important candidate selection criterion. These are great, John, but as you say, both approaches require serious work -- both before and after publication. In fact spreading an idea can take much more work, over a longer time, than agreeing on it, writing it up, and implementing it in the first place. A healthy Internet requires effort on three fronts: innovation to start with, deployment (not just of new ideas, but of what we have already to lesser developed areas), and finally trying to get our principles, conceptual framework, and attitudes accepted elsewhere. The first is the usual focus of IETF WGs. These days the third is increasingly important. In all cases it's not enough to launch something -- it needs to be nursed and championed for a long time after its birth. The IAB's primary orientation should be toward breadth, not depth. Individual members can focus in particular areas but the IAB as a whole needs to cover a great deal of material on all three of these fronts. Doing a good job on all three "legs of the stool" takes hundreds of people. We non-IABers can generate the sort of thing you're talking about as well as the IAB, and we should. We should use the IAB as a focal point, lookouts, facilitators, instigators, conveners, as well as as individuals for their expertise and dedication. I think these capabilities are at least as important as being able to write up results of deliberation. We should take as least as much responsibility for doing the grunt work, including coming up with innovative ideas, writing documents like those you describe, and making sure results happen in the real world, as we expect IAB members to. See you in Montreal. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf