Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market forces
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 12 May 2019 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 CD305120072 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 ZuDn2i5fgeFz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 06:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB2F1200A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 06:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFD136B; Sun, 12 May 2019 09:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 12 May 2019 09:39:50 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=zFlD/YLwMqizvbRXsvJtJPoUSJWpjsLZX/TIeAFmj wU=; b=UcI12Aan7EVCq9VjthUdqORbzxC6CIj4XxhDMzfEFruFsVX9Pp3kwf9xS Ecc+hUZPJv5cm7EOIaHaGFzx0wNNvRdMn88FqT+wtOHchZxJK2deVIqC84xsEz9F nRfJWcKRyTyyfidHx6IG7Ug/yOLoDhzBa5EBXAyijTOo/dY6tUTsoFRC1/zxbZC4 5V12VPtGgIi4GXlqrO9YPtTxOVHBWgm0SbN/QQ2FACQd9QEB52NXCBv1Nt05OUbf PWizMIgy09mvb33jCfGSA9qj8P7vlhpJn90dZybbxa9D7HHrgD6r4FlINVl8Z/Y1 mKIfctLi6jOEuLk7gVj1r6SU8NauA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JSLYXOQeyZJhqizBCgP8QpM5McgprDZfNHpavdHlx95G1EgnjCG2xA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrledvgdeilecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpegrmhgriihonhdrvghsne cukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep mhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JSLYXID0twTZ7TBBOO1B5mW2k9q_LGff5dGR8GjYk3R1Zj6kH5zhRA> <xmx:JSLYXG0HqW8SXEBIVno5OvwxRQ0c-nTwR2kdS3t6CnamqHdcEr1gng> <xmx:JSLYXOUgH9V-aDBhvBdvczEqdlZkxNAvZiGlbC8rllr0GEnOOoJcFQ> <xmx:JSLYXLKa6NOasfbYOgSdKveBpVbp8mDxBJEnwV5Cxim6EPtWOCf-2g>
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4372580063; Sun, 12 May 2019 09:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market forces
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAA93jw7eZ0Rfvc+tUKx0mG_Bdxqos-DTBn=ojYJCM0UCh38ScA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB25221DA057496B1A89FD391B95390@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAA93jw4V6328H2awWmSnhJnKgKASqy-9yXY=ke3JgcMxLiRY2A@mail.gmail.com> <C302B225-7806-4D6D-9ECE-FA3EFD6D7CA4@strayalpha.com> <4C8193B9-586C-4ED9-B01E-6BA37071600A@fugue.com> <B091A35A-265F-4D8E-93E1-AF6071BF6E12@strayalpha.com> <828cc927-0407-1398-1c21-cfb5100b8628@gmail.com> <dbd6df0a-38b7-9dbd-6603-7edf64a6fda3@network-heretics.com> <21647.1557605171@localhost> <1e876b8c-e3b3-8fd4-aa41-c8e0a61d2ad5@network-heretics.com> <CAA93jw7rhu4Z5N77sBmZfDzgV01YD2JTfb++aC7aEu36mnWj+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <5e869b83-8b48-64c5-307c-2acb2aa42ded@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 09:39:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7rhu4Z5N77sBmZfDzgV01YD2JTfb++aC7aEu36mnWj+g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y8WoLNN1wsx342CtrPJ_EscxbHU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 12 May 2019 13:39:54 -0000
Dave, thanks for raising tough questions. I am somewhat skeptical that IETF should place too much emphasis on its estimation of the "market". I remember one working group that started out saying "we're just going to standardize whatever <big company> does, since they'll win anyway" (even though the resulting standard would likely not have worked well for users of other companies' products). Fortunately, they didn't end up doing that, and while what they produced was bloated and baroque, and I'm not even sure that <big company> supports it, the IETF standard was implemented in an open source project, which was adopted by other vendors' products. And the computing world has become larger and more diverse so that<big company>'s products are not as relevant as they used to be. And yet, the zombie projects you cite absolutely do exist in IETF, in significant numbers. I have rarely seen a WG vote to disband itself rather than take on new work. Some WGs naturally wind down because their work was inherently tightly scoped, so it's obvious when they're done. For others, at every meeting more drafts with less overall relevance are adopted. But somehow there's a belief that ADs should not be able to kill WGs. There's a strong feeling that people who have invested in a WG should not have it pulled out from under them like a rug. Nobody likes a project that they've been working on to be terminated, and I can't say that such decisions made in industry are generally wise. But cancellations are nonetheless sometimes necessary. Some WGs go off in the weeds and never correct themselves, and continue to meet for many years, taking up precious meeting slots and AD and chair and participant resources. Sometimes it turns out that the WG's original idea just wasn't that good, or wasn't as easy to realize as it initially seemed, or the participants simply aren't willing to reach any kind of consensus. And sometimes a WG's work is overtaken by events. Zombie WGs aren't just taking up resources for those who participate in and manage them. They make IETF less interesting overall, and decrease IETF's perceived relevance to its own participants and to the world. I remember when you could get real work done in IETF meetings. The meeting slots were long enough and you could often get two of them scheduled within the week, so between the meetings you could get together with the relevant people, hash out the necessary compromises, and revise the I-D before the week ended. Meeting time was devoted to discussion, presentations were rare, there was no PowerPoint. There wasn't a microphone queue to slow everybody down, and the seating wasn't squished together so tightly that most participants couldn't get up to speak. There was no WiFi in the room, so the room wasn't full of people glued to laptops doing other things and distracting from the discussion. And the WGs didn't take on a lot of peripheral work, they were tightly focused on a small number of drafts. (and yeah, some of those things needed to change, but most of the changes were made without much consideration of how they'd affect our ability to do work) These days it seems like you spend thousands of dollars to travel halfway around the world to meet for 2 hours, or meet for longer in a broadly-scoped WG that only has a few minutes to devote to the project you're working on, and 90% of that time is devoted to staring at a screen. And somehow this is supposed to facilitate progress. What would IETF meetings be like if they were primarily set up to facilitate production and testing of running code? Keith On 5/12/19 2:33 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Zombie projects stagger through the hallways. Most orgs (of any sort) > do do a yearly review of their projects and kill a percentage of them > if they are not showing results. In my case I use very different > techniques to ensure good code and standards, among others, the game > of dealer, > ( https://www.amazon.es/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-Parc-Computer/dp/0887309895 > ), and focusing > (48 pt font) on running code and public deployment, more than rough > consensus (8pt font). > > I can think of quite a few working groups within the ietf with > projects on their agenda that were long ago surpassed by market > forces, and the need for any further standards to appear, long since > vanished. The winners in the market stop going to ietf, the losers > plunk along trying to get their stuff standardized. To avoid howling > here I'll skip mentioning the dozens I have on my list, and just pick > on one that I was present at the founding of, homenet. > > Market forces have completely shifted out from under that working > group. No serious vendor > support ever appeared. The vendors most affected, never showed up. > Specs exist, but code doesn't. There was a very good preso on all this > at homenet 104. The members of that working group hummed > overwhelmingly to recharter at ietf 104. After that, however, several > core members of the group expressed to me that it would be best to > shutter it entirely and attempt to move the core to an org that was > actually focused on running code, more than further specifications and > further wading through ietf processes, and thus, meet elsewhere, > entirely. > > I feel a lot of working groups here could adopt the best of the ietf > processes, dump the rest, > and disband their ietf presence, meeting using better tools, cheaper > hotels, and leaner processes. > > >From the bottom up, and the top down, it would be better to > periodically ask hard questions (is this tech going to work?), do a > market review (is this standard (still) needed?), and so on. > > Asking each working group to justify its continued existence and need > for meeting space with a set of hard questions might be a start. > Identifying what questions to ask, a start to that start. > > An ietf with 30% less working groups, and a larger percentage of the > remainder working on standards that might matter, would be a better > ietf. > > It is always easier to add, rather than subtract. >
- travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Dave Taht
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Randy Bush
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Dave Taht
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? John Wroclawski
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Magnus Westerlund
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Dave Taht
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Magnus Westerlund
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Dave Taht
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Joe Touch
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Ted Lemon
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Joe Touch
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Ted Lemon
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… John Levine
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Mary B
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… John R Levine
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Keith Moore
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Brian E Carpenter
- IETF attendance costs Dave Taht
- Re: IETF attendance costs Paul Wouters
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs John Levine
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF attendance costs Nico Williams
- Re: IETF attendance costs Carsten Bormann
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… John C Klensin
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Keith Moore
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Michael Richardson
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Keith Moore
- Reducing IETF scope in response to market forces Dave Taht
- Re: IETF attendance costs Stewart Bryant
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market for… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market for… Keith Moore
- Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market for… Dave Taht
- Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market for… Jared Mauch
- Re: Reducing IETF scope in response to market for… Jared Mauch
- Re: IETF attendance costs Carsten Bormann
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for the next SC… Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF attendance costs Jared Mauch
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Joel Jaeggli
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Ted Lemon
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Keith Moore
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Keith Moore
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF attendance costs Melinda Shore
- Re: travel funds for ietf for the next SCE talk? Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF attendance costs Melinda Shore
- Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] travel funds for ietf for … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Stewart Bryant
- Re: IETF attendance costs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF attendance costs Stewart Bryant
- Re: IETF attendance costs Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF attendance costs Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF attendance costs Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Mary B
- Re: IETF attendance costs Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF attendance costs Mary B
- Re: IETF attendance costs Ted Lemon
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… John Levine
- Re: IETF attendance costs Melinda Shore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF attendance costs Keith Moore
- Re: IETF attendance costs Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Finding the BOF [was Re: IETF attendance costs] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Aaron Falk
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Aaron Falk
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Aaron Falk
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- email-101 [was Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Greg Skinner
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Salz, Rich
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Ted Lemon
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Ted Lemon
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Mary B
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Salz, Rich
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Melinda Shore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Melinda Shore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… John Levine
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Michael Richardson
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Ted Lemon
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Nico Williams
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance cos… Keith Moore
- Re: email-101 [was Re: to pitch or not to pitch, … Warren Kumari
- Re: email-101 [was Re: to pitch or not to pitch, … Kyle Rose
- Re: to pitch or not to pitch virtually, IETF atte… John Levine
- Re: IETF attendance costs S. Moonesamy