Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Standardisation processes are advised to include a consultation
>> phase with government and industry policy makers, and civil society
>> experts."
> As noted by several people here, the governements don't ask for a
> voice (they already have it) but for a power of decision. One can
> imagine what would have happened of RFC 1984 in such "consultation".
I have regularly asked my (gc.ca) government why they aren't regularly
involved in the IETF. My "standards council of canada", is totally captured
by 1980 era ITU-types. Many are sure that the OSI stack is running the Internet.
1990s, and 2010s government "purges" mean that there is bimodal age
distribution: internet-clueless boomer with power, and internet-first
millenial with no power. That is changing due to retirements, unfortunately,
the smartest "boomers" are the ones taking early retirement.
I point to US NIST, ISI, and how NSF has supported Internet things, and our
agencies do really dumb things.
(Like the university researcher who was funded for more than a year to discover
how MGCP was insecure)
I have also pointed out, that as an *operator* of a network with a spend of
about $1B-CDN/year (closer to $3B-CDN/year if you count all IT spending, much
of which have hidden network spends), I need to ask: why aren't you behaving
like an operator? NANOG, ARIN. They do show up a IETF meetings, when they
are in Canada, but they don't read the ML.
Canada's CSIS researchers are actually starting to do IETF security protocol
reviews. This is a *significant* step forward. I suspect it is the result
of above mentioned boomer retirement.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
