Re: Functional differentiation and administrative restructuring
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 08 September 2004 13:51 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11973; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:51:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C52ub-0000x3-82; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:55:01 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C52io-00022Y-VM; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:42:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C52hy-0001ny-1B for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:41:58 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11514 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C52lb-0000oX-R9 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:45:45 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C52hw-000JbR-0Z; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:41:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:41:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: avri@psg.com, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3470D47048173F2B310F878B@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D614A12-0196-11D9-B7C7-000393CC2112@psg.com>
References: <p06110413bd640a63bcb8@[129.46.75.181]> <B46C0FE1ED11AA817149589D@scan.jck.com> <0D614A12-0196-11D9-B7C7-000393CC2112@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Functional differentiation and administrative restructuring
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400 avri@psg.com wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for you analysis. It was something I felt lacking and > has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into ISOC > model and the independent corporate model. > > I look forward to your analysis of the absorption model. Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as the excuse for the rant below. You are certainly not the first person to do this and probably won't be the last; your note just arrived at a convenient time. <rant> I think we need to be very careful about slapping labels of convenience on options and then getting distracted by what those labels "mean". Doing so can really distract from a productive discussion in which information is exchanged. There has been a lot of that sort of distraction, and the associated confusion, going on, since even before San Diego. "Absorption" is a loaded term. If we are asked "how would you like to be absorbed into foo", the answer has got to be "no". For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather unpleasant (for the food) digestion process. But, to my knowledge, no one has seriously proposed anything of the sort. Certainly the standards process has not been "absorbed". I doubt that the RFC Editor staff would consider themselves "absorbed". There are unincorporated organizations in addition than the IETF which have worked closely with ISOC for years and haven't been "absorbed" either. And "independent corporate model", while less loaded semantically (at least for me), is almost equally bad: to the best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed that either, since "independent" would imply "own fundraising" and presumably untangling the standards model which is now seriously intertwined with ISOC. As long as critical pieces of those things remain in ISOC's hands, we aren't "independent" in any of the normal senses of that term. </rant> john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Functional differentiation and administrative res… Ted Hardie
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… John C Klensin
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… scott bradner
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… avri
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… John C Klensin
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… avri
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… John C Klensin
- Re: Functional differentiation and administrative… Ted Hardie