Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt

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

 



At 16:00 27/05/2006, Dave Crocker wrote/
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
So the reason for the "IETF" in "IETF Operational Notes" is "related to the IETF", not "approved by the IETF". Much like the way "Internet Engineering Task Force" is related to the Internet, not approved by the Internet......


1. The Internet is not an organized, decision-making body. The IETF and the IESG are. 2. It has already been noted that the series will contain documents that are not operational. 3. The question is how the title of the series will actually be interpreted by average folk on the Internet, not what you might have intended.

Harald,
You have a complete and consistent IETF and Internet vision you try impose step by step. I have objections to the vision and no objection to the try, but why to hide it? IONs root in RFC 3935 part 3.

In using your own wording: you think the IETF participants are to help their leaders influencing the world in the way to design, use and manage the global digital ecosystem, for an Internet made of the global collection of machines, etc. to work better, along the core values of the IETF. This is because there are many reasons why decisions may have to be made by these chosen trusted leaders exercising their good judgement, doing the right thing according to the common mission, and acting on behalf of the IETF without consulting the entire IETF first. These reasons include the near-impossibility of getting an informed consensus opinion on a complex subject of several thousand people in a short time. I object to quite everything, but I agree that IETF needs a delegation doctrine.

Your proposition is to provide these leaders with the necessary framework to sign "presidential orders" in their area of authority. OK, but you do not document:
- the rules to assign someone or some body ION approval authority,
- the IETF control and renewal mechanism,
- the subsidiarity rules to apply.
Without them, instead of a simplifying system we would implement feudalism. Each ION approval body acquires the privilege to issue document series which may create conflicts, confusions and feuds. This may significantly increase the number of appeals. It may also lead to alternative reference sources invading the RFC territories (I see for example that you want to address via ION your problems with RFC 3683, ...)

This would lead to a barbarization of the IETF. But I see you foresaw this in 2.2. and a further IETF rebuild (from one of the created ION p principalities?). I would suggest these points to be addressed before enacting this system.

jfc



_______________________________________________

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]