On 4/25/2014 7:56 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
An obvious counterexample is what recently happened in perpass and the various works it has started. Regardless of what anyone thinks of perpass or its outcome, a fair characterization is that it was an IETF repsonse to the message delivered by Snoden et al.
Yup. It's a singular example, but that's the point. It's not what the IETF (usually) does.
It's fine that it's being attempted and it might (or might not) prove useful. But there is no pattern of the IETF doing such a thing.
My point was not meant as a statement of philosophy or criticism of the IETF, but a description of the long-term operational model that covers its actual history.
That model is for initiatives to come from the grass roots of the community, seeking facilitation within the IETF. These do not depend upon strategic management directions being set.
And maybe something has changed since the four years I spent going to IESG retreats, but I recall lots of discussion of how the IETF as an organization should respond to various industry trends.
Yes, we often have such discussions. My observation is that it has typically had little or no effect on what work is actually done, absent initiative from the community.
With respect to getting work done, this is a bottom-up organization, not a top-down one. (That's why I think Area "Director" is a serious misnomer and Area "Facilitator" would be far more accurate.)
But it seems pretty clear that people regard the IETF as a bit more than that. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
Yes, there is quite a bit of mythology about the IETF. Sometimes it borders on mysticism...
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net