On 23/03/2013 01:46, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 03:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in
>>> IETF would help minimize the risk that some interests were
>>> shortchanged, but I certainly agree that another factor is a lack of
>>> understanding of, and respect for, the effect of certain changes on
>>> the Internet architecture.
>> Interesting... that could be the case.
>>
>>> Have we even tried to identify and advertise those architectural
>>> principles since the early days?
>>
>> It may no longer be achievable, as pressure from vendors for new
>> features and
>> functionality drives new protocols and protocol additions, and while
>> saying "no"
>> sounds good in theory, the reality is that it probably doesn't really
>> prevent the
>> efforts, as much as cause them to be done as via private
>> vendor=specific efforts...
>>
> What's necessary, I think, is to respond to pressure for new features
> and functionality differently. Rather than saying yes or no, say "we
> have noticed that the existing architecture fails to meet needs X, Y,
> and Z; and we propose to change the architecture in such a way to
> accommodate those needs while still safeguarding other important
> features or interests"
Keith, having been one of the progenitors and the editor of RFC 1958,
I hear what you're saying. On the other hand, I have observed with horror
the whole "clean slate Internet" exercise of the last few years. I am
not optimistic that we could ever reach consensus. In fact I have
been pessimistic about this for years (ever since RFC 2775 in fact).
It's rather like trying to design a new global architecture for the road
system.
Brian