Re: IETF Challenges

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 02 March 2013 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 C22FF21F85A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:39:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFaAyXJFhj9o for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C00021F85A2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r22KdbLM025967; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:39:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1362256782; bh=hKXTNK9OYwPPGvpDhMITL4dXQ7qGbEky16Uz/0bMlUA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2aYDnTOZJRdKURMBZg9oeotPIpos1UKAs8l+ea++qni1xHTfC4guF14E2wI+PzQj0 TmvhsdeBtfpgXzX8aho3aSzyXYPUsgR343h1+7RI00pT4f1Owr5W3CL0dyaZGPtN6d 3c19Um/j3LQefBgLK1CdTB8bn+JWt/4GU5dmTH18=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1362256782; i=@resistor.net; bh=hKXTNK9OYwPPGvpDhMITL4dXQ7qGbEky16Uz/0bMlUA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=FV5/zCu3YupeJmxPom0DVXwOzjfVuCSt+WwYwDXmsz6CBRzrouEPjPP4QTigua8tu IxGsEiLwpp3ibhQ5cBpem6eZDx3SoniPqSQ4Y2N4u0xBtkSFjlt2h+PEgPaGShupJ4 PXHiv93rAm9+MYtlav6+9xNSc7Q8Z+bEl8J2+kuo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130302111036.0a89a000@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:35:12 -0800
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: IETF Challenges
In-Reply-To: <2810D400-BA42-40B6-AFDB-C308283C7330@piuha.net>
References: <2810D400-BA42-40B6-AFDB-C308283C7330@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:39:43 -0000

Hi Jari,
At 01:17 02-03-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>In my new role, I thought it would be useful to start a discussion 
>about the challenges we are facing,

One of the challenges is that it is difficult to reach consensus on 
non-technical issues.  Several Area Directors have tried to address 
issues.  It usually ended in failure.  This is where people give up 
as it is not worth the hassle to "improve" the IETF.

One of the issues that might come up (I cannot predict the future) is 
the fading of institutional memory.  The IETF is already experiencing 
icannization.

If the IETF has become very international it would be apparent from 
the mailing list archives.  A quick look would show that there 
weren't any messages from people from China or Japan [1].

The main challenge, in my opinion, is to avoid the disconnect between 
the IETF and reality.  The "code, interops" mentioned in the blog might help.

It is easier to publish a RFC than to prune one.  It has been said that:

   "Obsolete" in English can mean "no longer used"; as the IETF uses
   the term, it is closer to Merriam-Webster's second definition

Regards,
-sm

1. The statistics for Japan is skewed.