Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 31 May 2016 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9239B12B008 for <>; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nShp-Vx9-Dj0 for <>; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B76512B054 for <>; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id eu11so58816843pad.3 for <>; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlHKwiQKFYpZmEAwgIyzD5/wbYHYJxBV/9Nf6SHMqUE=; b=r1r2gUZ3JKbbmudaCBAB3p/RGeRtz3geTJR4vMIIVIMUddSjUDiKF+x6DzckULHrkU i/jTtXyfFITLSA53jPwg0dHr+xCxvzRClH2509A8L2WRgpA5U86G/5MaRlAAi8JxL94R qvrLwkfKAzm931ye7l8cFNJsftQ320IdnzzGNolH5I+TP4RrgAkGUV13JdKtpHlOdB0W yXF2ts3zrBXRfa/ed5j7pRYgqKiLspANQ43yKPuizJYbKHRaUcZ47JaeFPaiot7cHPpW D+VIm/CM8XnqKlkrA09wFij1pIFFDN4YmiC6ufjrb43meC7HoQxpwHki2Th5CybmvmOM CcVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlHKwiQKFYpZmEAwgIyzD5/wbYHYJxBV/9Nf6SHMqUE=; b=FKrhHBPvNb3MUiPjon8aWRv1uHpWbcHNESEp3YmlxL4FcLtIo6tSPaatfZK13NrLp9 Jlt5xzvqTL9Gy9v8aM0FQyV/S4nMWen2YvcfSGsLNcx5BK/BoRe0x0+nJwFIrtMxipoq KQ5NQ1yU5kc+I6gp5gtlTxojc53am9WYme7fy9p+trk2Vv8mG5HkMSE3SF4njHcDZUSi eQTvlM2AowMtVCYYDi2g03Z/XcONkPqG5PXJTDUbrKbKjL9bG3TA+g5d9lt6TUOFr/hS DkI2RI5LxARJc36is+Fz+ZG5DjbPSgeqjd3vy3LAFx4TcQKAKwhop7ubhDM34ERCK7D/ unww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ8lZY5YUs+LcvOEAZgFCDJ0kJjYAzsKAjijjhdP7UeE3N9BLLp1QYfiud8FtKsSQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id y9mr52676542pas.102.1464672597130; Mon, 30 May 2016 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7211:1:6548:acd:b245:7933? ([2406:e007:7211:1:6548:acd:b245:7933]) by with ESMTPSA id i8sm2322799pao.26.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 May 2016 22:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:29:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 05:30:01 -0000


A few factual corrections below.

On 31/05/2016 15:31, wrote:
>> But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical organization
>> that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by definition
>> finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they wouldn't be
>> IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be willing
>> to make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed up for.
>> We don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
>> non-technical statements in the name of the organization.
> too late.
> See e.g RFC3271 ('ideology', 'noble goal'),

That was indeed sponsored by the IETF operations area. But it
is very explicitly not an IETF consensus document (or maybe
you didn't read the Abstract).

> RFC1984, RFC7258...

Those (and RFC2804) are not non-technical. They talk about the technical
impacts of limitations on cryptography, of wiretapping features, and
pervasive monitoring on the security of Internet protocols. Clearly they
convey technical implications for regulatory policy, but so do many
scientific or technical documents.

> The IETF is now a function of the Internet Society (ISOC), 

No it isn't. The actual phrase was carefully chosen - "an organized activity
of the Internet Society" - to indicate that it is *not* a function of ISOC.

> expressing
> the policies of the Internet Society within its technical domain.

No it doesn't.

> (Because the IETF famously couldn't govern itself, 

Actually, the IETF is famous for having created its own governance structure
in 1992.

> and if there's
> just one thing that ISOC is all about, it's governing other things.)

Not in the least. The ISOC has always argued against any authoritarian
version of Internet governance.

> If you're not willing to make a statement on a non-technical field,
> ISOC will decide what you think, and make that statement for you.

ISOC has members, chapters, and so on. When it takes a position, it
results from consultation with the members.

> ISOC "acts as a public relations channel for the times
> that one of the "I" groups wants to say something to the press.
> The ISOC is one of the major unsung heroes of the Internet."
> -- says ISOC, singing its praises in the Tao.

ISOC didn't write the Tao.