Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS

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

 



Given the subject matter, I suspect that the issue has something to do with net neutrality and the various parties attempting to spin on that particular issue.

As with many of these layer 8+ issues, what is driving events is not necessarily the actual capabilities of the technology so much as the perceived capabilities. 


This conversation is not just taking place in IETF. There are international treaties which bind certain very large authoritarian states to co-operate to prevent 'information terrorism' (aka free speech) and 'dominance of the information infrastructure' (aka being the United States, Microsoft, Google, etc.). 

Now there was a time when the idea that the Internet or the Web might have political implications was to be treated with derision and sarcasm. After the past six weeks, the political dimension cannot be hidden any longer. 

Col Gaddafi is currently murdering his own people for having the temerity to oppose his misrule. I really don't think we can expect him to shrink from violating a MUST condition in an RFC. Nor do I think we are going to see major hardware vendors pass up sales because they will not implement censorship or control mechanisms (they have not done so to date). 


Much better to have a clean separation in my view and let all the folk with the complicated hidden agendas go elsewhere. 




On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) <dworley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the absence of
description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a split
regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM for
MPLS.  And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial interests.
And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction had
the upper hand within the ITU.  The former committee was to provide the ITU faction
with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU faction's
agreement would be required for "IETF consensus".  Eventually, the IETF faction got sick
of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their solution, so the
veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF faction
can reach "consensus".

So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the winner
will be determined in the marketplace.  "The great thing about standards is that there
are so many to choose from!"

Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]