Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Sun, 17 November 1996 21:02 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa21169; 17 Nov 96 16:02 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19432; 17 Nov 96 16:02 EST
Received: from by id aa21161; 17 Nov 96 16:02 EST
Received: from by id aa21155; 17 Nov 96 16:02 EST
Received: from ( []) by (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA00285; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:00:49 -0800 (PST)
To: John C Klensin <>
CC: Steve Coya <>, Tony Rutkowski <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
Reply-To: Einar Stefferud <>
Message-ID: <RM:c0d83d13.0013c7a9.0>

OK -- We are getting to the pont I want to get to, which is to articulate
what it is that the IETF does right, and does well, that is so critical to
the success of the Interent.  My focus is on the Interent, not the IETF, in
terms of the target for the work to be done.  I will clam that it is the
openess of the IETF process that works for the good of the Internt, and not
the goodness of the people, except for their acceptance of open workng
group rules.  

Of course, the notions of Rough Consensus and Runninng Code should not be
forgotten!  The RFC that specifies IETF WG operating rules needs to be more
widely broadcast as a model for Internet focused work.

I like your summary of the things that must be avoided in order for anyone
to develop good technology for the Internet.  It meshes precisely with my
notions of policy for Internt Focused Working Groups, in cuding industry

Other work has suffered from being closed to broad review, and I am trying
very hard to make sure that this new AGENTS work, if it ever produces any
results, will only suffer from being done right for the Internet.

Now to return to focusing on what the AGENTS Workng group should do for


At 13:39 17/11/1996 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Others have done better at developing other stuff, but not Internet Stuff.
>> Is there any harm in other people learning how to do good internet stuff?
>> And if there is no harm, what should IETF do if such a process begins to 
>> occur?  Hopefully not throw up road blocks and try to claim or enforce 
>> hegemony.
>If that is what is happening, I see no problem at all.   The issues 
>arise when the work goes into a consortium that has policies that 
>encourage things like:
>  -- restricted distribution of documents and working materials
>  -- listening only to the paying members, with no real 
>      procedures for soliciting and listening to input from the 
>      technical community at large.
>  -- restrictions (licensing or otherwise) on the use of 
>      the specifications or technology that are developed, or
>      availability of specifications only at relatively high 
>      prices.
>Obviously, none of those constitute the IETF way of doing things.
>   john