Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 25 March 2016 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DCA12D534 for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=wzUAC3Cy; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=iogfCI3M
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Tk-bHv-4JZl for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D40C12D11B for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2PAMfrC000831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1458901374; x=1458987774; bh=7BoqKtSQq5QRR+cpp7fAsqXLAUKtjzFuPNt12yLOQhY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=wzUAC3CyDCI5J862MAUj83CalshGvMH8ZCdfTn4Fz3FvCAJDLTE1kYbbxt4+2AOw/ JlljgtndBFUfUl0wtnP+NnxGMgdfBawg4gUK/ciVQvbAz10u2HNnYXanD06xldJQNw h1wPxp0i8gHFH2DjUrpMN+1P0rGlU1polBfWv4F8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1458901374; x=1458987774;; bh=7BoqKtSQq5QRR+cpp7fAsqXLAUKtjzFuPNt12yLOQhY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=iogfCI3ML+kY4trtZLKVCeGaNClO/7Iz9KUoJQl2HKsHRqX+i4i+TJR0EpzpBAP2P SKBaHUVK+JXTMhPnpFw1xgJc4VRZlglJ02YSVt/QLYyCRtT/iAxccuJBLLrIQjLOJc zxA7iOJKfYz+qc++L2ZsAqC5i1oy+K32u524pp+k=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:06:18 -0700
To:, Jari Arkko <>, Steve Olshansky <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:22:58 -0000

At 15:03 29-02-2016, Jari Arkko wrote:
>The team has been working and they have today published
>an -00 draft. We'd love to have your feedback and thoughts
>on this topic!

The draft is interesting.  Some of the topics which might be of 
interest are: succession planning, fragmentation and cross-culture 

If I am not mistaken it is the first time that a (IETF) draft 
acknowledges that politics and technology are intertwined. The draft 
asks some interesting questions.  Will the IETF be able to address 
those questions?  There hasn't been significant ink-shedding in the 
IETF on those questions.  I'll highlight a point in the draft: "If 
participation is solely driven around getting one's own work done 
then that might deteriorate the quality of the overall output and 
thereby the relevance of the IETF".  As the draft mentions, it takes 
a serious investment of a person's time for IETF participation.  The 
question that a person could ask is: what's in it for me?

S. Moonesamy