Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 15 August 2012 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1278721F8808 for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.518
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29hwaI65DZrO for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DE621F87D2 for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9699; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1345034658; x=1346244258; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=eaea729R5ZW48dSgQzLxzPJGLgP8uC1oCkSc0okb2IU=; b=Xx+SlVGy6BQMmfereP8HogDKysy/sI7aO0E0iLRR2kN7eQTzQMiBRG/D P981PphQAnI/v2ss1gMxN1NcEleWQg8nme6pdleRZCuA7Y8H+khj7HYjg nEQw3rV6GGcBgf0Wwvi+CNnb9vweqDADWNE3/Pny/IuIvbCh5Q1+Gdt/k I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,773,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="142443993"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Aug 2012 12:44:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7FCiGK1017721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:44:16 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:44:16 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <>
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010702020301080307060609"
Cc: "" <>, IETF Discussion <>
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:44:21 -0000

Hi John,

On 8/15/12 2:15 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> To me (and I speak only for me here), the purpose of this document is
> to articulate principles that have made the Internet a success.
> JD:  This seems a bit presumptuous to me.

It's an assertion.  I wouldn't claim, by the way, that this was the only
factor.  IMHO, it was a contributing factor.  Moore's Law and the
development of technology in general all contributed, but you had to
have a process that was open for the technology to flourish.  IMHO this
is why SNA, DECNET, Appletalk, XNS, OSI, and others did not win, where
IP did.

> It is a means to invite others to subscribe to those same principles,
> and there are many standards organizations that do not.
> JD:  I would be willing to bet that nearly every SDO would claim they
> embrace these same principles.

And that's a fair point.  The proof is in the pudding.  I believe, and I
know you do too, that the IETF itself can explain in clear indisputable
terms how it fulfills the principles of openness.  Anyone can join a WG
list.  Anyone can submit an Internet-Draft, anyone can comment on that
draft, anyone can request that draft's advancement, anyone can comment
on or contribute to or object to that draft's advancement, anyone can be
a part of the leadership (one needn't even have ever participated in the
IETF before!!).  Decisions are made through a consensus process.  That
process is designed to be transparent.  There are appellate avenues for
abuse of process.  They have worked and are working.  I am told for
instance that at this very moment there is an appeal before the
applications area director that seems to me particularly meaty.  That's
good.  It's important that people know that there is an appeals avenue

The W3C is very similar.  The IEEE SA is also similar.  So are others,
and that's fine.  But there are many other organizations where it's just
not the case, and so...

> Customers and society can demand better, and this is an avenue for that.
> JD:  How, exactly?

How about a phone call?  A blog?  A press release?  Laws and regulations
requiring the use of standards based on those principles?