Hi SM, > On 20 Mar 2019, at 8:36 am, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Which statement is that? > 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"? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. > 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. I don't agree with this characterisation; it's missing the point of the draft, which is that the people behind the computers are the point, not the programs running on them. > 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. I agree with you on [3]. Cheers, > > 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. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
