Phil Maceri
10247 Barlow Crossing
Perrysburg, OH 43551
Cell: 248-250-1194
Home: 586-435-9542
> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:35:41 +0200
> To: franck@xxxxxxxxx; brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
>
> Dear Franck,
> the reference is not ISOC nor the IETF. The reference is the user.
> Hence, the networking solution people may use on the digital
> ecosystem they built and own in common. The difficulty is to evaluate
> from past and present IETF/ISOC contributions their future cons and
> pros; and the methods for their pros to keep being efficient and
> their cons to be corrected. This concerns the time proven/dusted
> approach of their "affinity group" (RFC 3774) - among the billions
> mentionned by Brian. Can they still deliver? Not easy as those who
> think "no", or are confused (the users?) are not available for
> comment, or PR-actionned.
>
> Some questions are:
> - what are the users' needs which are solved, and not solved?
> - why was the IETF good as solving them, poor at not solving them?
> - what should be the resulting architecture we should support and how
> should we support it?
> - is the IETF/IAB/IESG/IASA/ISOC adapted to produce the deliverables
> this architecture requires?
> - what about users' QA?
>
> Please reread RFC 3774, 3935, 3968. This kind of self-analysis is
> impressive. It should help. They all tell what is to be corrected.
> Starting with the mission and purpose of the IETF. It is not to make
> the Internet work better in influencing people (where legitimacy,
> capacity and competence would come from?). But it is to tell people
> how they can better build, manage and interopate their own system.
> jfc
>
>
>
> At 14:34 05/06/2006, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >All,
> >
> >I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is
> >on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org)
> >
> >While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still
> >consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to
> >better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point
> >of view is interesting for me.
> >
> >I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best
> >help it.
> >
> >IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at
> >www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris).
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >| Ran,
> >|
> >| RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >|
> >|> Previously, someone wrote:
> >|>
> >|>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major
> >|>> concern.
> >|>>
> >|>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to
> >|>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
> >|>
> >|>
> >|>
> >|> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has
> >|> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor.
> >|>
> >|> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by
> >|> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated
> >|> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the
> >|> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those
> >|> funds. [1]
> >|
> >|
> >| I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have
> >| changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the
> >| RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently,
> >| ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and
> >| extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At
> >| some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair
> >| and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these
> >| expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently,
> >| and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the
> >| funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the
> >| Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current*
> >| situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member
> >| contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the
> >| RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget.
> >|
> >| This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the
> >| least.
> >|
> >| With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous
> >| meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is
> >| that representatives there consistently stated support of the
> >| "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC.
> >| Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that
> >| pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to
> >| the creation of IASA.
> >|
> >|
> >
> >- --
> >- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >Franck Martin
> >franck@xxxxxxxxx
> >"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
> >G. Bachelard
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> >iD8DBQFEhCTlvnmeYIHZEyARAtTBAJwLUb5A7+mdSjDPGxaVY/9LGSDMlACeIYxh
> >MWceB9CzA8a/Wr6V7oZZSfM=
> >=vYIH
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ietf mailing list
> >Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf