Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?

[Andrew Campling <[e-mail]>]

Brian

On 14-Oct-20 20:59, Brian Carpenter wrote:

> On 14-Oct-20 23:41, Andrew Campling wrote:
>>...
>>  In addition, I challenge the presumption that the IETF is the only body able to make such a determination about these matters and that it can and should do so without undertaking full consultation with other stakeholders.

>I for one make no such presumption. But we have never made that claim. The claim we've made is that we know how to make *our* protocols secure against inspection or forgery by 3rd parties, and that it's our job to do so.
>
>When we try to go wider than that, we fail. I am not very sympathetic to "a true multi-stakeholder consultation process as suggested by the IAB’s RFC 8890". The IETF is not in any way a suitable vehicle for that kind of process, as anyway who remembers WGIG/WSIS is well aware.

I suspect that the key area where we diverge is whether due consideration is given to the impact of the decisions made by the IETF, looking beyond the purely technical aspects.  The IETF does not operate in a vacuum, it cannot reasonably ignore the real-world impacts of its decisions nor should it ignore the views of relevant stakeholders including end users, governments, civil society etc.  

I note your concerns about the suitability of the IETF to conduct a stakeholder engagement process but nevertheless, for the reasons stated in my earlier post, I believe that it is both entirely reasonable and necessary that such activity is undertaken as per the IAB's recent RFC 8890 publication.  Of course it may be that the IETF doesn't have to discharge the activity itself, instead does so via a third party.  As it is an IAB document, perhaps the IAB could comment how it envisaged this stakeholder engagement being undertaken.  

Andrew