Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:41:30AM +0100,
 Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 176 lines which said:

> That said the IETF really does need to be more open to new
> revolutionary ideas.

Is it really the role of the IETF? The IETF standardizes things for
the Internet. Nothing lasts forever so, one day, the TCP/IP Internet
will be replaced by something different. It is not a problem if this
is done by another organisation. The IETF is not a goal in itself, it
has a purpose, dealing with the current Internet. I'm fine with the
idea that other organisations (but certainly not ITU or ETSI) work on
more revolutionary ideas.

(This may be also a job for the IRTF.)

> Sooner or later someone will have an idea that ultimately leads to
> the obsolescence of IP. Whilst that seems unthinkable to many,

It is perfectly thinkable, one day, it will happen, but so what? Our
goal is to make people communicate, not to maintain the IETF for ever.

> If the IETF is always dismissive of a change from IPv6 to another
> forwarding layer, eventually some other SDO will latch onto its
> replacement and will take primacy in the development of what people
> will still call the Internet but which will work another way.

I'm OK with that. But I bet this "other SDO" will never be ITU or
ETSI.

> The IETF could try to buck the trend here by more openly fostering
> investigation of the mechanisms and protocols that will ultimately
> replace its core offerings, and this is why we need more to be open
> minded about the operation of all parts of the Internet,

Or IETF may think that it is not its role and happily defer to
researchers outside the IETF.