RE: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

Larry Masinter <> Fri, 05 June 2020 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACD53A10FB; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fvry0GzMOs5F; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0BE93A10FA; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fs4so1893657pjb.5; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=6anxFH6xUyy2A2aepKpf1cAmamlf9P8MmyTM8UBaIvo=; b=GTn0AqWkGWjZjUJafCNopgp8v7pj4ApBkzDESrF6nZmLFxXVaBO15ztJQIqi7Y40Yh MlOgggS9isOKACL8r94hpOgWhef7Z/xsOkgMgxd8hg3QIwdSwBNs363gl7B6iZiU1CXf YaxnfeBEHMmP7ShkxWUev/OmPTRPyylqIsNg0Q+TJn9JA6xZ3isXih5qJSpz0l6R6Ffi Y0hf0QiI3ebK3TwoAniwEMfL6vwDt7NZr/OpyMjwE0dUbHtABAIO5+JcmUT9ozT/FVNn irCBEljfi8ov3NfeIYKAq2mP/Hk0anLFLO8sCJpsf319pUr3oW7me7oTGfMOCsqdUWAF ilqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=6anxFH6xUyy2A2aepKpf1cAmamlf9P8MmyTM8UBaIvo=; b=ma3UzwOAbPoLiz9SUURy8vVRzKLGNrC+nqBmya/J1eCNzzDnQucyVHQfDmFiHGeKNA /Tuxz8m7ctxtLIaIrmyx6N3RU0OaHJC3FMDjEqRhbGY2zKaRhp6QFjcpVNcuhCOAXJFi 7XSeVaGikTgx3K0RL68t61pjjI4HUcVkh3NHtzX8IBAxEbJWClV346zpvaAFRkt81hg2 aDnKmTO+Avo54fx6d94y6uE85GE1wnOl+VGgWLe244GbVYpD0/DobOGT74lGEjR/sZmZ 4MWJ1T5FUBLl6+NxsFIlz04TJ4ashj1YpaZZZrIhFd+d30dOBIv3uvhPfpF2RrRp6KX1 cvUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hQZXhEu95llBdoYIm47pmtPF+AJEsyG3MH9xgcJ6m2fle8Ol0 tu6xBm8gCMbYiICG/FZ5BrY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZws2YJTNgDIPzdnBT3Ei5NgH2JZgNMFF0jA5sqvdxmdfe2IpfAjI8KvCQm6vuoBN6oqot2w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:33aa:: with SMTP id n39mr125104pjb.226.1591319633269; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z186sm2363501pfb.131.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <>
From: Larry Masinter <>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: "'Jay Daley'" <>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <>
Cc: "'ietf'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:13:50 -0700
Message-ID: <011701d63ad6$933cdc60$b9b69520$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0118_01D63A9B.E6DE5280"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFOPO5ONUiapLXVc2/iBogZ85b8iwNzf4jyAfd399ECSYp89gJQ5WYBAf0byFIA0IuYKQI/26wxAanPqyWpUymXAA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 01:13:55 -0000

My take on the “participant journey” discussion is that the UX perspective brings along  a kind of paternalistic view of vendor/customer, manager/employee, that the LLC will determine and design the participant journey, rather than the sense that the IETF standards process defines various touchpoints and the LLC goal is to   facilitate, enable, address pain points of typical user experiences.. I think you can USE the concept of “participant journey” as a good analytical method without buying into the who


I think some of the wording around community and strength is fine at the core, but I’d like to see more about occasional users who have no desire for a journey, they’re just here for a limited engagement, to enable one feature or update an RFC-defined IANA value, where those users don’t need to be part of the “strong community”. 


You might consider calling for “using modern UX methods to help optimize the user experience” and call “analyzing and documenting (and maintaining) typical participant journeys” as a tactical choice.


I think in the end the “community” we’re trying to serve are Internet users everywhere, and the strategy of the LLC should somehow reflect that.