On Mar 23, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 there have indeed been many proposals which diverged in all directions, so I can understand the "horror" feeling about some of them (which, I am afraid, reflects that we have not been doing that well in architecture education). I am optimistic, however, that a right new architecture will emerge. I am not sure whether the "road system" analogy fits well since we build "info highway", not physical highway. Did the old telco system look like the road system many years back? Internet as a different global infrastructure has largely subsumed it, isn't it? Lixia