Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

John C Klensin <> Tue, 14 August 2012 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E550021F855A for <>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crPdjcWxckdF for <>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D4721F8548 for <>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1T1HkM-000Izl-MD; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:05:26 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:11:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Eric Burger <>, IETF list <>
Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:11:48 -0000

--On Monday, August 13, 2012 22:26 -0400 Eric Burger
<> wrote:

> +1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for
> Internet standards development. As John points out, there are
> potential uses of the ITU-T for good.


I'd narrow your first statement further and say "Internet
technical standards development" or "Internet protocol standards
development".  There are, at least potentially, other
categories.  Those at least mostly fall outside the IETF's scope
and there may well be useful work for the ITU to do in some of

I find it interesting that ISO and many of their Member Bodies
(including, fwiw, ANSI) make a careful distinction between
standards that have direct bearing on safety issues and other
types... and use different approval criteria for the former.
The IETF doesn't do safety standards (emergency reporting is
really not in that category) and I'm not quite sure what a
safety standard at the IP layer or above would look like (I can
imagine some at physical layer, but we don't do those either).
If there were such a thing as a safety standard involving
communications technology, I could imagine an ITU role there
(although I can't think of any examples for which ISO/IEC JTC1
would not be more appropriate).

I don't see that as contradicting the proposed statement in any
way although, if we had more opportunity to quibble about
wording, I might think some fine-tuning was in order.