Hi Russ,
At 07:48 31-12-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
The IETF develops open standards for one global Internet, providing
maximum interoperability and scalability, and avoiding specialized
protocols in different places.
The concern is about whether to have text in the document for the
above. This is the third statement in Section 2:
"3. IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
needs of diverse technical and operational environments."
The sentence which is not in the draft is:
"The goal of the IETF is to maintain and enhance a working, viable,
scalable, global Internet, and the problems we encounter are
genuinely very difficult."
The comment from Adrian Farrel is as follows:
"I pointed out that 3184 predated the mission statement in 3935
and that it would
be "better" (IMHO) to align this revision with the consensus
mission statement
than to define the purpose of the IETF as an aside in this document."
The goal of the IETF is currently described as follows:
"The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better."
I read it as a simple statement. The reader may ask: "what do you
mean by that?" This is where the discussion gets into the mission statement:
"The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
Internet work better."
An alternative might be:
3. IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
needs of diverse technical and operational environments.
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
Internet work better. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical
competence, rough consensus and individual participation, and needs
to be open to competent input from any source.
IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
best solution for the whole Internet, not just the best solution
for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user. While we
all have ideas that may stand improvement from time to time, no
one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make
a standard technically inferior.
BCP 79 is the proper reference.
Following the IPR rules is an obligation for all IETF
participants. It was in RFC 3184, and I think we need to keep in
this document.
The text in RFC 3184 is as follows:
"We follow the intellectual property guidelines outlined in BCP 9."
In my opinion that text does not fit under the third statement. An
alternative, which was suggested, is to have it under another
guideline. The comment mentions that it is an obligation and I agree
with that. The point being discussed is that the obligation has to
be kept in this document because it was in RFC 3184. The document
has been described as being about personal conduct and personal
interaction. The document does not discuss about rules.
The Note Well is used to direct people to BCP 79. A person attending
a working group session will be told about the Note Well. A person
subscribing to an IETF mailing list will be sent a pointer to the
Note Well. I suggest leaving it to the Note Well to list the rules
as it has not been argued that the Note Well is inadequate.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy