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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 6B0C312D70F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iOEG6Uhu4xsw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 717CE12D110 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id bc4so171671145lbc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=beakywG0zOGKafuK9fe6hECbS36chugs3+oGs/oY9ZQ=; b=bKQ2iDVLa4Xzw/0RIM08sIy4Y9fY5zWkx6VumUsbv4ytKuOI7XCdzOQitr4L+pPykT p5Z1HOh/TN/bIW+eDEk6Hwp0a6KbQcF6neiyzvvGDiRYpfR/OzbAGFnCfuNH4G6ou06K R79ftSt0YUIL6ETn7qkabU/1p71aCZ/JiW6vZKB2uCkwtglnfQZUJ8KVmvZ5eAYAALDg bA4p3oSJWboi7LToyzx7ET8Ss6eK/MuclW2rzPey4GiIO9M1sxK9d3dk95VWrqQDtV0I 4q5raZJOwgjHSwdXrnuno5kaIK9JdtwfYCTknHMiWkzJCu8Zi2Qi9MhPp8p8oK7HPF4n jscA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=beakywG0zOGKafuK9fe6hECbS36chugs3+oGs/oY9ZQ=; b=lS6QXOmeEF8nx3SAFOUtgTgBoE/lRyDrNkuM8+UnoxQH+qWM94OgwvjKCFYyTQuUsO H+L9Qp7WxADuX1XjJO85ifTukTTwWXDH65geF2Eq82JWWhob+08LhQGRJLTf1m2Qlo7Z tMATKZkif7WZsv4n7rXTPxfOihk800q5gdk5p5977razCt37pFsFVC5+AkgkgYZkZ35/ XxcR5HQ7YhIYISWoWcrJXtQP3TswfOgBm5tdAaZjiGo4Diuqr5xkHdUXo+LiqxMbgEGc ngafOECFjcS9ebfa4iif2qHsuGIw/CDYOfBVXCsXezQg68Yx/Pua35rJkBlaHOqiRLq9 6waA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJaW2PC9BKgtdtr1+D2btMLKM63B5dl3pJD6gvDFoChK/P5UhWxixMEgHpSA4unDSYZ+/werHYmw42gOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.17.70 with SMTP id m6mr13940441lbd.142.1458673047638; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.151.67 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B32FDEA7-D224-4CE9-9315-D5413FEC572E@netapp.com>
References: <E83FC2B4-867D-44C9-AE1B-F4C414ABD041@piuha.net> <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A9FA6A7F@PALLENE.office.hd> <CAMm+Lwh+eY4miBH6n2ttwz00ypx9tVv0A4rM2v=VMQi6LH1h+w@mail.gmail.com> <DC437F67-52A1-4319-87D0-0499C9493983@piuha.net> <CAMm+LwiegpHeEVz-7ZONOgwDoyPypkDv7x5fa3c8CrarO+UcMw@mail.gmail.com> <DB4PR06MB457A17F9C3E428860347A24AD800@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <B32FDEA7-D224-4CE9-9315-D5413FEC572E@netapp.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:57:27 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: aOIOzNcNIPz1GNYxCAeUrlk4kDY
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiWuqVpCar7Z-6VudKofVnEhFRhcU7y7bNUKAhQUzW4cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wY2h0qNbsmx3WHfXUU_fF_XxRPs>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:57:31 -0000

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:
> On 2016-03-22, at 2:03, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>>> The mode of failure I keep seeing in IETF is the following:
>>>
>>> 1) A very narrow scope is decided 'to focus'
>>>
>>> 2) Poorly thought out aspects of the proposal are defended because the
>>> problems they cause are 'out of scope'
>>>
>>> 3) The resulting RFC describes a protocol that is worse than useless.
>>>
>>> 4) The proposal fails in the market.
>>>
>>> 5) The experience is used as 'proof' that the problem is insoluble. (optional)
>>
>> This holds for the IRTF too - though step 5 there is 'let's form an IETF workgroup to push it into adoption! This time for sure!'
>
> No, it doesn't "hold for the IRTF." Please don't generalize from your dislike of the DTNRG's bundle protocol to the DTNRG as a whole, and then to the entire IRTF.


I don't see how it applies to IRTF since the output there isn't meant
to be a widely used protocol.

I don't object to taking complex, difficult issues off the table in a
WG. But what I do object to is that folk take a whole load of use
cases and requirements off the table because they don't personally
care for them and then argue that there is 'no difference' between two
protocol choices because it doesn't affect their pet use case.