John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the questions are appropriate and hope others will
> address them. For my personal reactions, see below but, for
> those who don't know (I think you do), I've become increasingly
> concerned in recent years that the IETF is doing work that
> assumes an Internet that no longer really exists or is making
> decisions that are unrealistic given external and operational
> changes.
I think that our great tradition is to lead the industry with asperational
Draft Standards, and then to document reality in trailing Internet Standards.
We *have* been slow on the second part, because it's hard to get that kind of
work paid for. (That's one of the things I want to tell ISOC in June)
> I also think it has gotten very hard to talk
> constructively about tradeoffs and compromises in the IETF, with
> far too many strategic decisions made either on the basis of
> "several large vendors (or open source implementations) have
> done this, so we must (uncritically) adapt" or "X is important,
> we believe in X, and therefore anything that doesn't support X
> is evil and should be suppressed or eliminated". However, I
> hope my comments below help initiate that discussion rather than
> leading to defensiveness.
I agree.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
