Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Jefsey <> Tue, 27 January 2015 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F5B1A8706 for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:51:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4eazsWZVSrTU for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C733B1A86DE for <>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:44422 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YGBEY-00064F-HJ; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:51:30 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:51:16 +0100
To: "Richard Hill" <>, "Jari Arkko" <>, "Miles Fidelman" <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <C48DE0AC42FD41B08F1B2BB00223B003@Timea>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <C48DE0AC42FD41B08F1B2BB00223B003@Timea>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:51:34 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 10:30 27/01/2015, Richard Hill wrote:
>Or are you saying that the IETF's response calls for a contract to 
>be established, if the present MoU turns out not to be a contract?


a contract supposes a reference to a law. It is about something. It is
thought in common between parties. Parties must be legitimate.

- There is no law as this is global and does not want to be
    international (i.e. multilateral).

- I would be surprised if someone could describe a consensus about
   what will be discussed.

- I am sure there are multiple and often opposing ways of
   thinking/understanding which are involved.

- I am sure of something : none is a legitimate owner of what is
   being discussed.

I would suggest everyone to stop and read some Lee Smollin before
resuming this cosmologic debate.

All this debate is strictly of no interest as only an operationalist
approach can be adopted. Jari is right. The course is set. Rough seas ahead.
Nothing less, but nothing more.

The decision has been taken by the IETF leaders and has been endorsed
by last call and accepted as a rough consensus. What has been written
has strictly no interest: what counts is the momentum, the direction.

The thing is that many in the world will not believe that the decision
fits with the IETF mission and that the IETF leadership could take it.
Hence the need of an appeal for them to publish clearly that their
decision is really what they want.

Where we disagree is that you think they may have been wrong. I think
they have been right, but that this has consequences, that it is their
responsibility to consider them. and they do not. This is why we can
can build upon what they have decided, but one cannot see them as
trustable partners any more.

Words have switched from "status quo" to "permissionless innovation"
but the same NSA compatibility requirement remains. Same since 1984.

The applied contract will remain NSA compatible.