Hello,
At 02:58 PM 18-03-2019, Ted Hardie wrote:
However, in discussion some felt that there might be interest in
adopting this document into the IETF stream as a BCP (most likely in
the General Area), with a stronger focus on setting guidelines for
working groups when they face these sorts of issues.
This draft was previously discussed in an IRTF RG. It is now being
discussed within the IETF and the IAB. There is at least one
statement in the draft which is too political.
Are the guidelines (to be set) about the issues which IETF working
groups are facing from an architectural perspective or is it only
about the "market"? One of the outputs of the IETF is standards
[1]. That in turn sometimes ends up in products which people use. I
assume that a few people on this mailing list are aware of some of
those products "frustrate the user". Is anyone considering telling
[2] those users that "code is law"?
The Internet, as seen from an IETF perspective, is about "end points"
instead of "end users". The draft, as currently written, redefines
the meaning of "user". That is like saying that the Internet is for
web browsers and mobile phones.
As a comment about the appropriate work stream, I see it as being
about where one would get the level of review required to turn the
draft into a RFC. It could also be about wide-spread agreement [3]
if that is one of the objectives of the author.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. I was unable to locate the old discussion about that which ended
up with an "updates" to BCP 9 with a well-known search engine. I
recall that an ex-IAB Chair commented about that during a plenary.
2. It is up to that person to determine whether that it a good or bad idea.
3. That is not easy.
