Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sun, 29 December 2019 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane@sources.org>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E91012004E for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:48:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2D7-gOK7pzi for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fe27:3d3f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EC112002F for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 25473A029B; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:48:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 087D9C98F2; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:43:21 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:43:21 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
Cc: architecture-discuss@iab.org
Message-ID: <20191229094321.GB20055@sources.org>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20191227130815.120fc690@elandnews.com> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <2CA4CBDC-CAB0-4E02-BC4C-40DF67FB64BC@tony.li> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.2
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/w2WJkGPeEKr-jryIyg8r1GVq2Gs>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:48:11 -0000

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 07:31:34PM +0000,
 Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote 
 a message of 167 lines which said:

> I note however that, for example, the number of people participating
> directly in the IGF is significantly larger than that participating
> in the IETF and that the former group is significantly more diverse
> in nature.

Is this based on actual surveys about participants? Such a survey
could be interesting. Of course, many things have to be taken into
account. For instance, many people in the IGF are just spectactors,
paid to attend.

But the biggest difference is that the IETF produces things, good or
bad (the RFC) while the IGF produces nothing. If it tried, it would
explode.

> I believe that it is foolish to ignore this and pretend that the
> IETF can operate in a libertarian bubble,

I don't think that all IETF participants qualify themselves as
"libertarian". I certainly don't.