Re: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-modern-paradigm-01.txt> (Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards) to Informational RFC

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

 



At 10:08 29-09-2012, IAB Chair wrote:
This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on an Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards?.

The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection here:

It was previously mentioned as an individual comment that "this document is not being considered for publication as an RFC (at least within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not apply". The IETF Chair has stated that there is rough consensus [1] for signing the Affirmation. The press releases [2][3][4] have been issued. If the modern paradigm was used as a measure, there wasn't broad consensus to sign the Affirmation. What's the use of this IETF-wide Call?

The press release was a "fait accompli". It would have been awkward to raise a concern about it. This document could be qualified as spineless. The document only highlights that the IAB has consulted the IETF community after the fact.

Several years ago the following [5] was put forward as requirements that enable open standards (this is non-IETF material):

 1. Open Meeting - all may participate in the standards development process.

2. Consensus - all interests are discussed and agreement found, no domination.

3. Due Process - balloting and an appeals process may be used to find resolution.

4. Open IPR - how holders of IPR related to the standard make available their IPR.

 5. One World - same standard for the same capability, world-wide.

6. Open Change - all changes are presented and agreed in a forum supporting the
    five requirements above.

7. Open Documents - committee drafts and completed standards documents are easily
    available for implementation and use.

 8. Open Interface - supports proprietary advantage (implementation); each
interface is not hidden or controlled (implementation); each interface of the
    implementation supports migration (use).

9. Open Access - objective conformance mechanisms for implementation testing and
    user evaluation.

10. On-going Support - standards are supported until user interest ceases rather
     than when implementer interest declines.

It was mentioned that "some recognized SSOs (e.g., ITU) and many consortia (e.g., W3C) have a pay-to-become-a-member policy". To be fair, it can also be argued that the IETF has a pay policy for meetings. Surprisingly, the IETF does not meet Requirement 2 as the "Area Directors have a dictatorial level of control over the standardization decisions in their area". It is interesting to note that there are different interpretations of "consensus".

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74753.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74758.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/08/openstand.html.en
4. http://standards.ieee.org/news/2012/openstand.html
5. Credits to Ken Krechmer



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