Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)]
Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> Fri, 16 September 2005 17:28 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGK0m-0001lX-BG; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:28:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGK0h-0001lJ-Rd for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:28:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00374 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGK5i-0004QZ-Sb for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:33:41 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2005 10:28:14 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,117,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="660276679:sNHT48220370"
Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8GHS4KC019091; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [171.71.193.183] (dhcp-171-71-193-183.cisco.com [171.71.193.183]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8GHecRP026033; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:40:38 -0700
Message-ID: <432B00A9.9080602@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:28:09 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Thunderbird/0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <200509131506.j8DF664A016810@pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu> <tslhdcokeed.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <20050913204555.GA14153@boskop.local> <tslbr2wk78f.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <3C03BDBD60783D559EDAE652@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <01LSZP7AGR0Y000092@mauve.mrochek.com> <432886C4.9040606@cisco.com> <01LT0ZC5UEV8000092@mauve.mrochek.com> <4328C102.2010201@cisco.com> <p062309bdbf4e8f2a8454@[10.20.30.249]> <4329DE80.5040200@cisco.com> <p062309dfbf4f8ffb57d6@[10.20.30.249]> <4329FC5E.8080104@cisco.com> <4329FE12.9080005@cisco.com> <432A92C1.5040003@zurich.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <432A92C1.5040003@zurich.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1894; t=1126892438; x=1127324638; c=nowsp; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; d=cisco.com; i=mat@cisco.com; z=Subject:Re=3A=20net.stewards=20[Re=3A=20BitTorrent=20(Was=3A=20Re=3A=20[Isms]=20 ISMS=20charter=20broken-=0A=20onus=20should=20be=20on=20WG=20to=20fix=20it) ]| From:Michael=20Thomas=20<mat@cisco.com>| Date:Fri,=2016=20Sep=202005=2010=3A28=3A09=20-0700| Content-Type:text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20format=3Dflowed| Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit; b=e5rMLnE73A4aKGrAE9Ej3z2WMjeShE3ZZ/LdAMPu1ti2wA8nEy6zrAj972+OhmT1TV/UDLxg igFFnnOQpiqg8JVFg+6BlfLRoHZf6UFuBZoCnKCl2J2icXWzy6lTiaQFw9D6C8Ii6Na3T4Q/pkb jRivmMkyI+t/c0m2JB5SF1GY=
Authentication-Results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=mat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( message from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Michael Thomas wrote: >> I know that we aren't the net.cops, but are we not >> net.stewards either? > > > Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do. > > We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we think > are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year. Similarly, > we can request that IANA not register things we think are > damaging, or at least to label them as potentially dangerous. > > We can publish screeds about damaging practices. The IAB does this > a few times a year. > > We can try to develop non-damaging solutions for requirements where > the easy solutions are damaging, and we can try to repair our own > damage (as HTTP 1.1 repairs HTTP 1.0) This is more or less what I had in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but http 1.0 wasn't the invention of the ietf, but sprang forth outside of its purview. Http 1.1 was a response to the many difficulties placed on the net because of http 1.0, and there was an active feedback loop between the http world and the net (ietf) world to adapt both at layer 7 as well as below. Http, after all, was The Big Thing for all parties, so it's not surprising that there was active cross interest. What facinates me about p2p is that it was clearly the next Big Thing, but there seems to be no feedback loop operating whatsoever. I guess that surprises me. Thomas brought up qos/diffserv and operator business models which is certainly something ietf clue level could assist on, but it seems that we neither know them, nor do they know us and that both sets of people seem satisfied with that. I'm not saying that it's bad -- it's just a very surprising outcome. Ought both sides be that confident that the net as engineered today is what it needs to be for this Big Thing and the Big Thing after that? Or that our fertilization is really the correct mix to prepare the ground for the next Big Thing? > But we can't prevent people from deploying solutions that we > didn't develop, and we shouldn't even try to IMHO. I wasn't suggesting control, but much more that the cross pollination of clue isn't happening and whether we should be alarmed about that. In particular, what does that say about ietf? Some have suggested that it means that we've done our job, but that strikes me as a wee bit too self-satisifed for my taste. Mike _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms]… Marc Manthey
- RE: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Nelson, David
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Sam Hartman
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Sam Hartman
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Ned Freed
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Michael Thomas
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Ned Freed
- Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on… Michael Thomas
- BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- … Paul Hoffman
- CH and p2p [Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Michael Thomas
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Paul Hoffman
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Scott W Brim
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Michael Thomas
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Michael Thomas
- Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter brok… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISM… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms]… Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms]… Michael Thomas
- RE: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms]… Nicholas Staff