Re: ietf.org end-to-end principle

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/17/16 2:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I always think of it as the end to end argument, not principle,
> and from that perspective, I think it remains entirely applicable.

Yes, I do as well, but the IETF has not always responded
pragmatically to the ways networks are being deployed today
(and "cloud to cloud" isn't the issue).  During the 90s,
ideological purity on the part of a number of participants
and at least one IESG member prevented us from responding
well to the NAT situation.

But here's a problem: ideological purity and adherence to
good design principles tend to look like one another and I'm
not sure that it's always possible to tell one from another
except in hindsight.  Another problem is that sometimes the
"right" way to solve a problem, at least within our framework,
doesn't work well with network operators' business models.

I do think that one way to start to address some of this is
to reshape the way the organization is structured so being in
a leadership role (that is to say, the ones most likely
to be in position to block publication of a document they don't
like and to charter new work) isn't a full-time job, so that
people whose actual job it is to build networks, talk to
customers, and so on are able to step into those positions.  I
don't think that will fix the problem but I think it would be
an incremental improvement.

Melinda