IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.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 203DA21F8470 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o3zVqTba9Cu6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0221B21F8469 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail58-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.252) by DB3EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.3.84.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:02 +0000
Received: from mail58-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail58-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2F52A0574; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: 0
X-BigFish: VS0(zzzz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail58-db3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=huitema@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail58-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail58-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1335297360622969_5862; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.234]) by mail58-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D0E6006F; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by DB3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.3.87.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:55:59 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.142]) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.174]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:55:26 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: "mrex@sap.com" <mrex@sap.com>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Topic: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Index: AQHNIlFSq3+Wgs5x8Eqt7CQXpxysU5aqYO+g
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:55:25 +0000
Message-ID: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA03D1A0F8@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <B37F8BD8-F521-4E69-A05F-81587F8EE057@comcast.net> from "Michael StJohns" at Apr 24, 12 02:33:29 pm <201204241934.q3OJYrTc009589@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <201204241934.q3OJYrTc009589@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "john-ietf@jck.com" <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:06 -0000

We see here a tension between two goals, engineering the Internet and making standards for the Internet. In most cases, the two goals are easily reconciled , as open standards are an essential part of an open Internet. But here we have a conflict. On one hand, good engineering would mean, setting the best possible example in matters such as security and privacy. On the other hand, public standard making seem to require a very controlled participation process, in which participants have effectively no privacy. Of the two goals, I think we would be much better off emphasizing engineering and downsizing process. The Internet did not develop because the IETF had better processes than the ITU. It developed because we cared about making the best possible network!

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email