Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar tools

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 20 April 2021 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E563A1595 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 T6Bmt1jhFqbl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f179.google.com (mail-yb1-f179.google.com [209.85.219.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0B5A3A158B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f179.google.com with SMTP id y2so42357972ybq.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pKrEIZEP4HSWpbXOxAlC2+Knd60iQ0iz/vAn16N59yM=; b=HLel80eJyXWrLx/Z/uesNMBR+CV4gC2QpoWZy/hQ2owZo1iedVF9OLVQvqohXxJASN KaMQ8tpHdvQ0THEu5j26Isv6NFcUt9yqbKb5G5yQ+g93cXSMuVQ3cQWH59/tlQtzeesM BGQIhnCzCg0Ju3KSAaszCAwe6b5dgUG5urIe8Mtf5EGke6rnwxxSfv7a0/4p8luh0huX 9OXbCzCByOcQduSCKpTbzJZMBO7hgnewzjtVVLlsOaDKK27KyB4ax2B5Xh0qMZMHUena Sw3aYum/3mTGHHo6Y9W7KHTFV+i/xzIM6klEfeYdDW3MAVZjeygDbXWV1MN2Wu7jA1la yedg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xl5lqXgzL6ifDB1J5O6yYrVYPexO6rXhz14OblnUGIC0F6LvM XyOnm2+Rx2DnLXLyB0T1SbKjLg4UqGgoQac80U4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhNA+ro6WAO52LDr/5SYlpkO+NYKmWor79vHE+0na2HG4vR8xw2bJfzyIazia65R7sVHJ4FXuMrKnI8zsNQzo=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cb08:: with SMTP id b8mr2272390ybg.522.1618948496670; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210420160859.BF41573B7076@ary.qy> <9299F53C-BCF7-45F7-8B0C-F600ABB1838F@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9299F53C-BCF7-45F7-8B0C-F600ABB1838F@cisco.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:54:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiDdprZUj9qjK2WZ21TeEYpJrVZ0XWXpCA_b8FR2f+7WA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar tools
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000dc13405c06cd2c6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H2nBB3trH9FXvP3UsQC6PksRgeQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:55:02 -0000

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:57 PM Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> We have to decide what business we’re in.  If we are in the tooling
> business and want to compete with Microsoft, then we should be concerned.
> But as a standards organization, I don’t think we are.  I think we are in
> the business of doing open standards.  And it’s not as if Microsoft forces
> people to use Word and Excel on Github, or even provides a comfortable
> experience on GH for those apps.
>
> Eliot
>

Arriving at the Washington National airport with over an hour and a half
before my US Air Shuttle took off and three people in line ahead of me, I
thought I was fine. I missed the flight.

The problem was that US Air had made the mistake of thinking they were in
the airline business and they were actually in the information business.
And their SABRE flight check in system hadn't been changed since it was
state of the art in the 1950s. The fact that it took a clerk 15 minutes to
book a single passenger onto a flight was one of the main reasons the
airline went bust. But that didn't stop the CEO singing the praises of his
utterly obsolete information infrastructure. Its not just computer types
can get wedged on legacy systems 30 years after their sell by date has
passed.

Modern businesses are all in the information business and their business is
their IT systems and business processes at least as much as it is people
and plant.


My point is that IETF is in the information business and the community
building business and in a very real sense we are the set of tools we use.
In the past that was nroff, mailing lists and three in-person meetings a
year. And that model is no longer sustainable.

I really have no problem with Microsoft being the technology provider, they
have contributed a great deal to IETF over the years. But I do have a
problem with trying to use a tool designed to support one application for a
very different application. Fortunately, code is malleable, cloneable and
changeable. There are multiple options:

1) Use Github as-is

2) Partner with Microsoft (or similarly placed competitor) to design a new
collaboration infrastructure. IETF gets the tools it needs, partner gets a
framework for a collaboration infrastructure building product it can sell
to a much wider audience - modern business is process.

3) A group of IETF-ers take VC money to build system (2) above and then
sell the result back to Microsoft or similarly placed competitor as exit
strategy.


Of course, the fact that the large business process these days is to
outsource innovation to angel funded startups, the most likely one is:

4) A group of IETF-ers take VC money from Microsoft and/or similarly placed
competitors to build system (2) above and then sell the result back to
Microsoft or similarly placed competitor as exit strategy.


I know someone with an interesting technology that allows such a
collaboration infrastructure to be entirely end-to-end encrypted so the
cloud provider hosting the IT systems has no visibility into the business
they are supporting. An essential step if the operators are going to
mitigate liability.