Jefsey_Morfin wrote: > The Internet has dramatically increased this to the point we > have accepted it as a virtual and a global world, i.e. a > conceptual and geographical equivalent coverage to reality. > The IETF is therefore in the core of this But not alone, googlebot, wikipedia, and some other companies are nearer to that core. > the support of what people are to believe to be their > _unique_ virtuality. I don't believe in "unique", and I don't believe in arbitrary borders between "real" and "virtual". > The RFC system is not accompanied by a network ontology RFCs > would update. Evolving as needed. Today you can get human readable meta data for RFCs with the rfc-editor.org search engine, use ietf.tools, Bill's additional dependency tools, etc. Some years ago I had only a CD ROM and grep. > There is therefore no description of the virtuality the IETF > develops and the world is to beleive in. If we're in a sub-sub-sub-thread of "newtrk" (and not "NomCom") here, then IIRC one conclusion was that everybody is free to write "overview" documents about everything (s)he cares about. Getting rough consensus for a publication as an IETF RFC is of course a separate issue. > reality is diverse, so the virtuality must be diverse Yes, therefore please don't write "unique" outside of contexts where it's clear / necessary / desirable / ... (roll your own). > IETF wants to influence THE way people design, use, and > manage the Internet. There's no "THE way" in RFC 3935. > the way RFC 4646 is disrespected and therefore not > interoperable. You can bury that troll now, it's dead and begins to smell. > IMHO this comes from its decision method (rough consensus). > It is a major step _ahead_ over "democratic" votes, but > there is still a long cultural way to reach the adequate > "concerted consensus" necessary to the subsidiarity of our > networked technical, societial, industrial, political > diversified world. The models you've proposed where apparently based on national agencies, and I think it's ridiculous if individual experts can hide themselves behind smoke like "Iceland does not support to add xyz to standard abc". And then selling the results of such dubious activities as wannabe standards. They almost certainly have no mandate by (in this example) the people of Iceland. And even if they would have that mandate, why should this be better than the mandate of a comparable town which happens to be no nation ? > This is more complex, but this is the way we live, in > intergovernance. I'd be not suprised if "rough consensus" comes to a grinding halt at some point. Making it more complex isn't attractive. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf