Re: The IETF environment

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Fri, 25 April 2014 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B551A0653 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdapuxJxJPoP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BBA1A0652 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CE9CC0B3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KQYDoS8x969B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C50ECC0B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:05:03 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The IETF environment
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BiOZIgPRJQRXNArGay4tx2E-VLg
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:05:30 -0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 7:56 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> An obvious counterexample is what recently happened in perpass and
>> the various works it has started. Regardless of what anyone thinks of
>> perpass or its outcome, a fair characterization is that it was an
>> IETF repsonse to the message delivered by Snoden et al.
>
> Yup.  It's a singular example, but that's the point.  It's not what 
> the IETF (usually) does.
>

Silly question, but perhaps relevant in the context of the IANAxfr 
discussions:
So, a lot of what IANA does is covered by an MOU between IETF and IANA.  
What happens if IANA doesn't honor it's end of the MOU?  I don't believe 
it has any recourse measures spelled out.  Beyond that, how would "the 
IETF" actually notice and respond? (Both informally and formally.)

Seems to be another example of a key role that belongs to the IETF that 
contrasts a bit with its historical way of operating.

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra