Re: [Ideas] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK)

Alissa Cooper <> Wed, 11 October 2017 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E4D132F65; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=fZZIQx+t; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=S1l5iu6O
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dFTlL6cKtXn3; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C299E1320CF; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0398021886; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:08:08 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Sfc4T1J1/x2AYpEcv08PjNnoyYIG2 RioqMknRUaziWM=; b=fZZIQx+tmTcGjIBb0d74WeiuXCoAzUAuEB/UZrzzMaukW 4EyeIkVe45PtkhV5jkqw+DdxRrVfYvaLhr8bmes3ZY4SPZEu9Zb3huGh/JMbLQbd NYbV3ymcws1p70JYL+rTGgMVXRzrODkCI5eSb1hl+T8ioYlDhXH788+Zob1Yzk0t u0FgVcLsoZjRYY09srjXpxYBjJflQNtbIV5ewwrzx1xP6IQAowYfxhx3AqnUasO7 Ad2+Xmrh4PmzpOnjwc9Kof2ZEWLI8TW5OGFKYKMJFzBlEJjbNflg0uw24KJE/0cL OBS6dfXY1ug5IznYOr7hg95EevSzzHPegFaGnRH/g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Sfc4T1 J1/x2AYpEcv08PjNnoyYIG2RioqMknRUaziWM=; b=S1l5iu6OO6g/pByzICpeFc BAJ3qWyPGr2S7VTy5jrFXOsH5zCFvl9xTGXHRO8NFV4NBnJbOh1VDq4uWydd4nLL dN2v8laAyJCfkkUOkR8OOzs+3qXvo+BixwBD19VkymiQit8ii7qWySM+VN/w/CPz AYvC/UlbuhwjkMC6nf1dOFoljvQWgF8bBS2SH4/fTy9w5dTobFDvEwa62f/0FPjJ BDzq8nOe9yR1HUVXHKA2yb/ktQxO6d87Zs7abpgdV1h8rPoBfOzSkaa5icidLlB3 XB5PykZyLkyc/GlwWJb5X6a+ehf8FQed5Ebqdyrljvk47s5YrCqFKc/fhNeo51Jw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:J3reWfmwoT6n25b--Ct6qS6iVtSjtuRI5wDuxMHobTqaKh_vhT9YfQ>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8FB252479F; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:08:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:08:04 -0400
Cc: Robert Moskowitz <>, Eric Rescorla <>,,, IESG <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:08:10 -0000

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Dino Farinacci <> wrote:
>> Dino and I are connected outside the IETF.  These groups come to us to talk, then go back and do their own thing to fill the void.  They will NOT come to the IETF, but will take what is offered.
> And of course, the typical mantra from them (and I know you all have heard this before):
> (1) The IETF is too slow.
> (2) The IETF cannot decide.
> (3) The IETF has too many options. So we are going to pick one and put our Intellectual Property on top of it (i.e. SD-WAN IPsec doesn’t interoperate).
> (4) We can do protocols better and faster than the IETF.
> (5) We want to build our own protocols so we look innovative.
> (6) We can get strategic interoperability with our business partners.

I don’t understand how chartering this WG with the proposed charter — to write a framework document — addresses any of these concerns. Furthermore, it isn’t the function of the chartering process to change people’s minds about what they find deficient about the IETF. The function of the chartering process is to scope out and define new pieces of work for which there is support in the IETF community.

“The IETF” amounts to the people who come to the IETF to do the work and review the work. Work doesn’t get chartered unless the people who want it can at least minimally engage, explain why they want it in a way that is compelling to others, and explain how it fits within the scope of the rest of the IETF’s work and the internet architecture.

As I said in my note to Tom, this charter ballot isn’t a death sentence on all mapping system work forever more. It’s a judgment about the charter text and deliverables as they are right now.


> Dino