RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
john.loughney@nokia.com Tue, 28 October 2003 09:55 UTC
Received: from asgard.ietf.org (asgard.ietf.org [10.27.6.40]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12588 for <ietf-web-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:55:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AEPzt-0005vQ-Pi for ietf-list@asgard.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:18:41 -0500
Received: from ietf.org ([10.27.2.28]) by asgard.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AEPNm-0000RF-N7 for ietf@asgard.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:39:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08937 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: john.loughney@nokia.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEPNj-0005Cg-00 for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:39:16 -0500
Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEPNj-0005Cd-00 for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:39:15 -0500
Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id h9S8dFI20329 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:39:16 +0200 (EET)
Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T658eaf5a39ac158f21083@esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:39:13 +0200
Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:39:13 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:39:13 +0200
Message-ID: <DADF50F5EC506B41A0F375ABEB320636A8B7F0@esebe023.ntc.nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission
Thread-Index: AcOcTV6CeIFNyCmlR3+M30EMD6JtkwA4UALA
To: harald@alvestrand.no, ietf@ietf.org, problem-statement@alvestrand.no
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2003 08:39:13.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6F3DFE0:01C39D2E]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Harald, > > > I almost feel that this should just be dropped from the statement. My > > reasons being that I have been told by the IESG about protocol > > extensibility is that the IETF wants to have a tighter control over protocol > > extensibility, even for extensions thought to be for limited use > > or specific networks (for example, cellular networks). The reason > > being is that once something is out there, it often starts to be used > > in ways which were not originally planned or used outside of its > > original 'limited use' plans. Therefore, in order to ensure proper > > protocol behavior & interoperability, the IESG wants to manage > > extensibility. This has been very true in SIP & Diameter, > > for example. > > True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish > draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more detail - > but we failed to get that finished. So, I think we have to be careful about what we consider part of the IETF mission, if we cannot get basic agreement upon the implications of the mission statement. > > On the other hand, we see a protocol like RADIUS, which the IETF > > has never done a good job at working with or standardizing, being > > developed in 4 or more SDOs, and not in a colaborative manner. This > > makes a big mess with the RADIUS spec, and RADIUS does seem like a > > protocol that has a big effect on the Internet. > > You'll have no disagreement from me that RADIUS is a problem! > > > So, in summary, the IESG has shown not to follow the above paragraph, > > sometimes even for good reasons. I can't think of a way in which > > modify the paragraph to make it any better - because there will always > > be examples of work that the IETF choses to standardize (or not) > > which will violate that part of the mission. Perhaps moving the > > 'for the internet to the previous paragraph is what is needed. > > as I've said before - I don't think we can come up with a mission statement > that retroactively blesses everything we've done well before, or > retroactively curses everything we've done badly. And we do require > flexibility to "do what's right". But without the ability to talk about > what the mission of the IETF ... I think we'll do badly. The past is the past, I don't want to revisit the past. What I want to do is to look forward. We should have flexibility in terms of how to decide what the IETF can do, what it can't do and what it should (or shouldn't do). I think we cannot make a blanket statement in the mission that covers this. thanks, John
- IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Scott W Brim
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Keith Moore
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Eric Rosen
- RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Margaret.Wasserman
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Keith Moore
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Scott W Brim
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Valdis.Kletnieks
- IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed statem… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission mark seery
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Bill Manning
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Eric Rosen
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Vernon Schryver
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Eric Rosen
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Vernon Schryver
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Simon Woodside
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission masataka ohta
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Eric Rosen
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Vernon Schryver
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… mark seery
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF mission boundaries Vernon Schryver
- Re: IETF mission boundaries Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Dean Anderson
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission mark seery
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Dean Anderson
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Scott W Brim
- Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed st… Michael Richardson
- RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission john.loughney
- RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission todd glassey
- RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission john.loughney