Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 11 August 2012 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 619CE21F84A1; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCgWd6xa8Exe; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B4821F8496; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7BElsGT013457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:55 -0700
Message-ID: <5026708E.8080708@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:42 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <DF4B6630-8BD1-4BFF-B872-99619B06FCF2@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwio8=EyW-=LZE8BA4=6N=H4f7a1Nycg25LxB920ceZ6JA@mail.gmail.com> <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 11 Aug 2012 14:47:56 -0000

On 8/10/2012 3:52 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
> Just as it is not fair to say that if the ITU-T gets its way the
> world will end, it is also not fair to say there is no risk to
> allowing the ITU-T to get a privileged, NON-VOLUNTARY, position in
> the communications world.


Given the historical example of GOSIP, and its ilk, that you cited, we 
actually do have a basis for believing that a similar arrangement now 
will do quite a bit of damage.

The difference in timeliness and pragmatics between a voluntary, 
industry-collaborative effort like the IETF's, versus a legally-enforced 
position like the ITU's work, has already been demonstrated.

The latter never got their system running at scale.

Occasionally in an email presentation, I'll ask an audience who among 
them is familiar with X.400.  Very few hands get raised, yet for 15 
years, it was in exactly the legally-enforced position being proposed now.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net