Re: I-D Action: draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations-00.txt

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 04 March 2016 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71C31B37B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:35:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id osBrfKOj5aQb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB6A1A92E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3224E2CCE2; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:35:04 +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 AUP52l5QalhZ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:35:03 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817182CC9A; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:35:03 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_689561C9-E463-4620-8271-D1DE3E6E255A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <56D64BDA.8000600@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:35:01 +0200
Message-Id: <66E3F27A-06B8-4C90-AD95-C81DC37312EC@piuha.net>
References: <20160229211002.8391.13258.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56D64BDA.8000600@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j9kArgBuBnj4HVt_d5-R2te_GPY>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:35:13 -0000

Brian,

Thanks for your helpful comments!

> Thanks for this draft. It's helpful, but some other issues come to mind:

The reason we put it out for your review, I guess :-)

> Crypto-wars redux, including the privacy wars, and are they affecting
> general progress in the IETF?

Good points. Indeed there are non-technical components that may affect our work. It hasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, so far. But it could. And this is just the current instance of the debate, there will be future debates on this as well.

There might be other similar policy-level effects that affect our work.

> Are any of the problems in RFC 3774 still open?
> 
> Is IASA as good as it could be? Time for a 10-year review?
> 
> Is the IETF Trust as good as it could be? Time for a review?
> 
> Is the EDU effort as good as it could be? Time for a review?
> 
> ISDs*. The mess of RFCs updating & depending on other RFCs only gets worse.
> 
> IETF process rules. The mess of RFCs and IESG statements updating & depending
> on others only gets worse. I do my best at http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
> but it's spaghetti.

All good questions and points. And now noted.

(But I do want to draw a distinction between external “forces of nature” and internal arrangements and processes. We certainly have a ton to do in the latter area, and as a whole, noting that process rules needs un-spaghetting is for instance a worthwhile thing to note in the draft. But at the same time, we wanted to focus on the external and large scale shifts. Btw, IASA/Trust review has been a topic that the IESG has discussed and is something we would like to do.)

Jari