Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 09 March 2016 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 0A49C12D78C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oQAOVDmf436 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC67512D5AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9B82CCE2; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:20:24 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bv1ZMgBR0B62; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:20:24 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E432CC9A; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:20:24 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CDF6218A-F4D3-494E-B2BE-9F455C9F2197"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A9FA6A7F@PALLENE.office.hd>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:19:16 +0000
Message-Id: <3D4E9DF4-9618-4BD6-B77F-0A06D7877607@piuha.net>
References: <E83FC2B4-867D-44C9-AE1B-F4C414ABD041@piuha.net> <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A9FA6A7F@PALLENE.office.hd>
To: Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S6SHpeqJux8VeUfw9XFvRsS53CE>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:20:32 -0000

> Instead of seeing this as a risk ("who would need standards anymore?"...), I think we could do better in finding a constructive role for the IETF: For example, network programmability can enable and require new IETF protocol work -- e.g., evolving IP, transport protocol support in the network -- things that have been difficult in the past.
> 
> Finding a good role for the IETF here would IMO be useful, for example between ONF and systems SDOs like 3GPP…

Very good points. Thanks.

Jari