"we are amateurs when it comes to understanding the political consequences of our decisions." Well, so is everyone else, including the 'professionals'. (Um, Brexit? How's that professional activity going?) the question is whether the IETF should abdicate its agency in this regard. Being more like the ITU so that the IETF gets to continue being an alternative to the ITU doesn't strike me as much of a life. Publish as (plausibly deniable) informational, and be damned. L. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 23:06 Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users I think we should focus on technology and be neutral on politics. As an organization we are fully qualified to express a technical opinion on Internet technology, but we are amateurs when it comes to understanding the political consequences of our decisions. The more we let politics impinge on out technical decisions, the greater the risks that the various governments that support our position as the Internet design authority will move that support to the ITU which is the UN (i.e. government run) telecommunications standards body, and is geared up to consider the political implications of their work. Rather than consider this aspect of our work, we should put more focus on putting in place the telecommunications technology we need to have in place in the 10 to 20 year time-frame. By then we will need bandwidths in the 1TB class to the users, power consumptions per bit that is minute compared to the current level, and latencies where the laws of physics are the only significant factor. It is unclear whether the current Internet architecture will satisfy those needs without change, and in my view that is the area that the IAB should attend to, rather than to work described in this draft. - Stewart On 18/03/2019 21:58, Ted Hardie wrote: > Greetings, > > The IAB is considering adopting this document onto the IAB stream as > Informational: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-for-the-users/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-for-the-users/> > > with a focus on explaining why decisions in the IETF often are or should > be user-focused. > > 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. > > The IAB is seeking input from the community about the level of interest > (or disinterest) in the latter approach. Please do so on this list, by > sending mail to architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx > <mailto:architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx> (our public discussion list) or to > iab@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iab@xxxxxxx> (to reach just the IAB). You can also > discuss with individual IAB members in Prague. > > Thanks, > > Ted Hardie > for the IAB
