At 18:16 05/04/2006, Michel Py wrote:
Assuming that IETFers and their ideas on how to configure a network are representative of the general consumer base is ignoring this rich tapestry.
I am no IETFer as you refer to them. I am an unhappy user of IETF deliverables, as both a common enduser and as a network metastructure architect. I am also a non-commercial R&D matching the IAB's RFC 3869 criteria. So I think I can add to this point.
My interest is in IETF deliverable QA. I must say I gave up for a long expecting the IETF to _globally_ address practical user needs (this thread shows it). My only concern is that the IETF (directly [ex. BCP 47 on internationalization] or indirectly (ex. NATs)) does not prevent interoperability with the way their RFCs (or lack of) are market/grassroots applied. I hoped. But I am now afraid the Multilingual and Multilateral International Network convergence and evolution will be documented and organised elsewhere.
I introduced a project I cannot follow right now due to family reasons, calendar technical priorities and Brian's attempt to review the Internet standard process description. But I will. This project is an IGFTF I documented in my positive (on other grounds) appeal to the IAB. It is to: (a) get users inputs documented in an IETF readable way (b) through a liaison with the IGF considered as a consistent and a main users structure (c) watching at the ethic of the IETF answer - the whole thing being strictly respectful of the Internet standard process.
But there are certainly other possibilities to get insights of the "ignored rich tapestry". Was ever a WG-USERS considered by the IETF? Would it not be a proper time, before the "Intenat" succumbs under the weight of unstructured 4500 RFCs? Its charter would be to understand how the users needs should be introduced within the Internet standard process.
How to do for the IETF deliverable to be readable by 6.5 billions people and developers of every languages rather by some thousands. How to do to find the IETF authoritative response on any issue in a matter of seconds. How to stay in phase with the users' practical needs and practices, so they do not invent new NATlike solutions. How to do not to PR-defamact users for obtaining the non-excluding and externally interoperable consensus they were denied (and further on violated for that reason). May be even to even consider proposing built-in interoperability with non-IETF solutions ...
etc. jfc An IETF deliverables user. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf