Things that I think obvious....

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <> Thu, 09 September 2004 10:33 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05196; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5MJ7-0007Jc-7g; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:37:37 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5MDU-0002z1-Lk; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:31:48 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5M7e-0001z6-6D for; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:25:46 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04647 for <>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:25:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5MBS-0007Ax-Qu for; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:29:44 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B554461B92 for <>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:25:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16235-10 for <>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:25:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C7361B8D for <>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:25:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:21:12 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>
Message-ID: <66692881EAD9BEB9C2457FA6@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Things that I think obvious....
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I thought it would make sense for me to mention a few things I have 
regarded as "obvious" in this discussion - just to make sure nobody comes 
along later and says "you can't draw a conclusion based on that - while I 
agree with you, there might be others who don't" or something like that.
Clarity is good.

It is very hard to state these things in a way where nobody can quibble 
with the formulations, but I will try anyway.

1 - The IETF exists, and it is the IETF community.

Even though we have carefully avoided defining its boundaries, I believe 
that we all believe that the IETF exists. And it's obvious that if the 
people who do the technical work leave, the IETF is nothing.
So the IETF is the community.

2 - The IETF leadership is the IESG and IAB.

Some jobs are clearly given to the IESG in our documents; other jobs are 
clearly given to the IAB. Some jobs are not mentioned at all.
As part of the process of change, the community may select other people or 
create new bodies for other types of leadership.
And the IAB and IESG has to be in a continuing dialogue with the community 
in order to figure out what the right things to do are.
But there is at present no other leadership function selected by the 

3 - The community has accepted the problem description and principles laid 
out in RFC 3716.

The most common reaction I have had from people who have read RFC 3716 is 
"it's obvious, now that you say it". And it would be hard for anyone who 
reads the IETF list or the IETF-announce list, or the most recent 
plenaries, to be completely unaware of its existence, or that we are basing 
further work on its conclusions.
So - if there was significant disagreement with its conclusions - I'd have 
expected to hear that before now.

As I said - I *think* these things are fairly obvious. But it might still 
be reasonable to check that other people agree. 

Ietf mailing list