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

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 03:15:53PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 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?

Should I conclude from this that you think that because the IETF does not have total control, it has no responsibilities whatsoever?

I think the IETF has responsibility over what it produces, and should think about what the (intended and unintended) consequences of that might be. Nothing more, but defintely also nothing less.

Best,

Niels


> 
> 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
> 




> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3