Re: Long-term IETF evolution thoughts

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Marc, Nalini, Melinda, Michael — thanks for your comments.

All good points.

I wanted to send a few quick responses on some parts, leaving the rest for further thinking:

First, I did not indeed start out by stating what I think the goals of the IETF should. But FWIW, I was mostly thinking of them from the perspective of the existing mission statement. That is, improving the Internet is the bigger goal, and any other steps that we might strive for are intermediate steps that support that higher goal.

Melinda wrote:

> I think the formal barriers are low but it really is difficult
> for people outside the current process to know where to start.
> I've talked with people who have points they want to raise and
> who aren't getting anywhere on the mailing list, and when I
> suggest the write it up as an internet draft a number of them
> have reacted as if I was asking them to write a paper for
> submission to a refereed journal - they see it as a very big
> deal indeed.  So, I think there are opportunities to socialize
> how the IETF works to lower the perceived barriers to
> contribution.

I agree this is an opportunity.

I’d like to add that while the formal and initial bar for submitting a draft and participating in mailing list is low, that is not necessarily true of the whole process. People might look at the process of creating a new working group through BOFs etc with some apprehension, for instance.

Marc wrote:

> 1. Make it easier for people to be involved in the IETF.
> 
> I think that it is incomplete.  The goal should be something like "Make it easier for people that can produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet to be involved.”

Yes

> Personally I think that the barrier of entry to contribute to the IETF is already very low.  Effort should be made to be sure that we do not exclude people that meet these criteria, not trying to make things easier for people that cannot contribute to that goal, and ultimately would waste our time.

Fair point as well. See above for the barrier part though.

> The second one is about replacing or reducing the IETF meetings.  My personal experience is that the IETF meetings are invaluable

I do too.

> But I think that the main reason is hubris - i.e. all startups out there believe that their API/protocol will become the de facto standard, and that they will rule the market because of this superiority.  That, and the fear that collaboration with other people in the same area will make them loose customers, are in my opinion the main reasons for their very low involvement.  I'd like to see ISOC working on a marketing campaign or something like that to try to convince these companies to participate more in the IETF standardization process

The small and medium sized enterprises are indeed underrepresented.

I do have two comments though. First, different companies have of course different strategies on how they plan to succeed. Some believe collaboration and standards are part of that; others simply build on top of the Internet and do not need standards. Both modes of operation are quite reasonable. I don’t think we can make companies collaborate and standardise when they don’t have an internal reason to do. But I think there’s enough companies that have that drive, for us to work with them and improve the Internet…

Nalini wrote:

> The more people who actually are directly impacted by the standard are involved in providing comments, the better and longer lasting standards we will create.
> 
> Any organism (including the IETF) needs an effective feedback loop to thrive.

Very well put! +1

Jari