Re: [arch-d] on the nature of architecture discussion (was: Re: [Chirp] Fwd: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,
At 06:05 PM 02-04-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>If architecture can be associated directly with protocols
>of an IETF WG, then yes, it could and should happen
>in that WG, but i think there are more cases where even
>this does not happen. E.g.: I have seen ADs eliminate architecture
>from charters because it does not produce implementable protocols.
>
>But the more fundamental issue is that architecture mostly
>needs to predate protocol development, like research mostly
>needs to predate architecture and protocols. I can not
>see a logic that argues we must have an IRTF, but we cannot
>have an IATF (Internet Architecture Task Force). The
>whole construct of IAB for architecture is weird to me.

The "architecture" in the mailing list name is a misnomer.  For 
example, the last longest discussion was about Internet governance 
instead of architecture.  The problem could be the Internet 
Engineering Task Force if that entity views itself as the supreme 
body for Internet protocols.

>Oh, i think there is a lot of sport in trying to discourage work
>that is not officially sponsored by the IETF/IAB authorities
>at least from my imited experience.

There might be some truth in the above.

>We need to be darn careful with every single word we
>write about a side meeting. Make sure it is called "non official"
>every time you mention it, having people seemingly "borrow"
>sign up sheets for examination what could be wrong with them,
>ending up with concerns of using the same color (!) as "official" IETF
>meeting sign up sheets. Dismissive comments about even doing
>a side-meeting, Not being allowed to use IETF tooling
>like webex, jabber, wiki, etherpad, and so on.  Because using
>IETF tools would mean "endorsement of the activity" *sigh*.

Stephen expressed his opinion about that.  I doubt that we would be 
encouraging people to be open if we do not allow opinions which might 
be deemed as politically-incorrect.

I don't mind if anyone wishes to hold a side meeting.  The tools 
mentioned above are available to any organization.

>This is sad in general, but at a time when it is legally crucial
>to make sure all communications is easily recognizeable as
>public and published because of the US Govt. export regulations
>(see EAR 734.7) it is outright dangerous to make it so difficult
>for inofficial side-meetings to use or emulate the
>public/published nature of official IETF meetings.

If I understood correctly, the rationale for using (IETF) side 
meetings is that they offer a workaround for U.S. export 
restrictions.  It may be risky to do things like that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy