Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-00.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It seems to me that the most interesting assertion in the draft is that
the IETF are not protocol police.  IMHO if the draft answered JUST that
question, it would be worthwhile publishing.  Certainly Gueren,
Dovrolis, et al, would say that it is nearly impossible to change the
waist of the hourglass.  North and south of that point provides a little
more room, but just try changing TLS or HTTP outside of the IETF. 
Nuttin doin.  At the same time, most phone/tablet apps bypass standards
organizations for pretty much any sort of development.  And oh by the
way, in that case, who cares about the protocol or standards development
since the endpoints are often coded by the same entity?  (And when there
is disagreement in that case, the word we seek is schizophrenia).  And
so perhaps the more refined question would be this: when is an SDO the
protocol police?

Eliot

On 7/4/17 1:22 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> On 04/07/17 05:12, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> This is a terrific topic and I'm glad to see this draft.
> I agree it's a fun topic. I'm not sure if this'll end up
> as a useful draft or not though, but I figure it's worth
> exploring.
>
> My own quick comments:
>
> - I'm not sure this should try seek to "answer the
>   question whether protocols are political" as I don't
>   believe that's as useful as just fairly describing
>   various positions on the topic. Maybe, after we've
>   gotten the describing bit properly done, we'd be able
>   to seek an answer, but I'm not sure that's worthwhile.
>
> - 3.3 basically reflects what'd be my starting position,
>   but I don't agree that that position "requires that
>   each protocol and use be evaluated" follows from that
>   at all, at least not without a qualifier like "if you
>   care about whether protocol-foo may be political..."
>
> - I think Andrew is right that some definition of how
>   the term politics is used in this draft is needed.
>   Does it encompass internal "politics" amongst IETF
>   participants? Does it encompass company-internal,
>   and intra-company politics? I'm not sure if the
>   authors intended to include those or not.
>
> FWIW, I'd probably review a version of this in detail
> later, if the RG decide to adopt a later revision of
> this draft. As of now, I don't think it's baked enough
> for the RG to decide to do that yet, but discussing it
> seems useful, as the topic has come up a few times.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc