Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol

On 14:32 13/09/2005, Pekka Nikander said:
>OTOH, maybe I am just a  dreamer and totally off the ground here?

No, you are not!

However the problem with a "vision" is to know where the boarder is 
between dreams and real future. This is why I prefer a more prosaïc 
"model" which gives a simple image everyone can easily understand in 
the same way.

For example, everyone - knowing the e2e principles can escalate it to 
a b2b concept of brain to brain interintelligibility when it comes to 
human languages (inter-brains protocols). And understand very simply 
why internationalisation is e2e and multilingualisation is b2b. Two 
different layers.

For example, everyone - knowing the e2e principles car enlarge their 
"mono" vision to a 'n.(e2e)' "multi" vision:
- where e2e principles are respected in multilple parallel [split, 
into simpler - as per RFC 1958] relations,
- where link ends are welded together and the edges (OPES) to provide 
real final "added" value:  not on the wire [as an impossible "e2e 
added value" ] but as an "added e2e's value".
And understand that an OPESed SMTP does not need to read an e2e mail 
when a parallel e2e link told it the mail did not originate from the 
other end it claims.

Another way to be sure you are not a dreamer is to look if your idea 
worked in the preceding public international network deployments 
(Tymnet, OSI). Obviously you have to translate it in/from IETF words 
... and be opposed many "this is not an Internet way" ....

Another way to discriminate between dreams and reality: if you are 
really alone of your opinion, you are right. Because it is not 
possible the words counts so many wise people. This is the 80/20 
rule. As long as the true majority is less than 80 the situation is 
stable. Over that the minority is probably the coming revolution. 
This is the difficulty in reaching a consensus. If 100% more or less 
the noise(rough consensus): we all agree, right or wrong. A 5 to 20% 
opposition is probably right. The big difficulty is to discriminate 
between noise and less than 5%. We are back to your question....

jfc

PS. Here is a quote of a mail to a WG-Chair who prefers to stick to 
his charter and see his WG die, instead of working on its revamp 
based on the WG's acquired expeirence. Conflict between requested 
engineering and lack of IAB exciting architectural proposition.

"This is why I have decided to proceed in parallel, using IETF Drafts 
so information will continue to flow. May be will this increase the 
ad-hominems as the economics will also increase. But at least we will 
go ahead. The architectural error is democracy. I never asked my 
phone or my computer to be democratic: I ask them to work.

Reseach is not democractic. The error is the IETF "consensus": the 
consensus was OK in the early days when everyone was standardiser, 
experimenter and user. Now when seven employees of the members of a 
commercial consortium represent a "consensus" for a "BCP" against 
(RFC 3863 included) the users, the only solution for the users is to 
renew with the old system and to specify, test and use by themselves. 
The problem is that users are disorganised, so they will develop in 
parallel, and we will have balkanisation. Too bad."

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf