RE: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

John E Drake <> Wed, 15 August 2012 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9071A21F88C9 for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRGBuHV-0fjs for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C9C21F88CB for <>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:47:55 PDT
Received: from ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:46:03 -0700
From: John E Drake <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:46:02 -0700
Subject: RE: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Thread-Topic: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Thread-Index: Ac166eJvLKLuN4d1StiKUBM3tx6iEQAASl+w
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A5A9B46674EMBX01HQjnprn_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:47:58 -0000


I don't think the principles articulated in this document will come as a surprise to any SDO with which the IETF interacts and I don't think this document will prevent another SDO from acting badly wrt the IETF if it so chooses.  Also, bear in mind that 'acting badly' is entirely subjective.

For example, if you were to ask the ITU leadership if they 'acted badly' during the MPLS-TP imbroglio, I think they would counter that it was the IETF that 'acted badly'.  In fact, I have seen them say exactly this.

And lest we forget, we had a much more comprehensive agreement in place for MPLS-TP.



Sent from my iPhone

From: Abdussalam Baryun []
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:29 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Hi John,

>Does this document actually have a purpose, and if so, what is it?

IMO the document introduces important statements (purpose and objectives) so that other organisations and SDOs recognise while interacting with IETF. It may look simple or known, but necessary for IETF future cooperations.

I agree that your question is very important and that the best person to answer is the Chair of IETF or IAB.