RE: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

John E Drake <> Wed, 15 August 2012 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6489D21F8848 for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.476
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eiXX9WLSBDnK for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14B221F8827 for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:20:24 PDT
Received: from ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:16:36 -0700
From: John E Drake <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:16:34 -0700
Subject: RE: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Thread-Topic: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Thread-Index: Ac165GTkePAF5zqhQIG2WZZrIToIcQAA0jrA
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A5A9B46662EMBX01HQjnprn_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:20:26 -0000


Your explanation of the document’s efficacy leaves me skeptical.   We should always do something for a reason.



Sent from my iPhone

From: Eliot Lear []
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:44 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc:; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Hi John,
On 8/15/12 2:15 PM, John E Drake wrote:

To me (and I speak only for me here), the purpose of this document is to articulate principles that have made the Internet a success.

JD:  This seems a bit presumptuous to me.

It's an assertion.  I wouldn't claim, by the way, that this was the only factor.  IMHO, it was a contributing factor.  Moore's Law and the development of technology in general all contributed, but you had to have a process that was open for the technology to flourish.  IMHO this is why SNA, DECNET, Appletalk, XNS, OSI, and others did not win, where IP did.

It is a means to invite others to subscribe to those same principles, and there are many standards organizations that do not.

JD:  I would be willing to bet that nearly every SDO would claim they embrace these same principles.

And that's a fair point.  The proof is in the pudding.  I believe, and I know you do too, that the IETF itself can explain in clear indisputable terms how it fulfills the principles of openness.  Anyone can join a WG list.  Anyone can submit an Internet-Draft, anyone can comment on that draft, anyone can request that draft's advancement, anyone can comment on or contribute to or object to that draft's advancement, anyone can be a part of the leadership (one needn't even have ever participated in the IETF before!!).  Decisions are made through a consensus process.  That process is designed to be transparent.  There are appellate avenues for abuse of process.  They have worked and are working.  I am told for instance that at this very moment there is an appeal before the applications area director that seems to me particularly meaty.  That's good.  It's important that people know that there is an appeals avenue available.

The W3C is very similar.  The IEEE SA is also similar.  So are others, and that's fine.  But there are many other organizations where it's just not the case, and so...

Customers and society can demand better, and this is an avenue for that.

JD:  How, exactly?

How about a phone call?  A blog?  A press release?  Laws and regulations requiring the use of standards based on those principles?