Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Mon, 18 November 1996 18:57 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa24203; 18 Nov 96 13:57 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17365; 18 Nov 96 13:57 EST
Received: from by id aa24190; 18 Nov 96 13:57 EST
Received: from by id aa24184; 18 Nov 96 13:57 EST
Received: from ( []) by (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA09468; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:55:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Fred Baker <>
CC: John C Klensin <>, Steve Coya <>, Tony Rutkowski <>,,,
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
Reply-To: Einar Stefferud <>
Message-ID: <RM:c0d83d13.0013cc11.0>

Hi Fred -- I think this issue is now very clearly settled, and it is up to
the AGENTS group to decide what is wants to do next.

I believe that they will work on findng a way to use IETF processes and
rules to further their work outside the IETF, in part because they are not
Ready for IETF Prime Time, and in part because of the interests of some of
the participants to hold onto Change Control of the completed standards

I only see one possible remaining IETF issue that might be resolved in this
thread.  This is the qquestion of what IETF thinks about, and might want to
do about other groups going off an using IETF processes and rules to
independently develop standards for use n the Internet.

This issue has nothing to do with whether any particular work is ready for
IETF Prime Time or not, or whether IETF has room at the Inn, or not.

Personally, I don't think the IETF has much say about how other people mght
go off and do things on their own for the Internet, as their is no way that
the IETF owns the right to do good things for the Internet, and more than
anyone owns the right to do good things for the global economy.

The ultimate test of IETF work, and any other work done "for the Internet"
is whether the Internet Market accepts the work and usefully deploys it.

There will of course be calls for somone to coordinate non-IETF work with
IETF, but I think the "rules" that require the work to be done in the open
with open work processes and open ownership of the results will allow the
IETF to maintai awareness of the work and its progress.  I expect many ETF
people to aso participate n these other works.

I also note that the IMC (Internet Mail Consortium) has openly adopted IETF
work princiles for its varous initiatives and its workign groups, if any
should exist, so my ideas here are not new by any means.  I expect there
may be others doing the same thing without advertising the fact.
For myself, I think it is fair to advertise the facts.


At 06:46 18/11/1996 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> wrote:
>> Other work has suffered from being closed to broad review
>which brings us back to the matter at hand, which is the agents bof.
>As I tried to articulate to Tony, we have some scheduling problems
>inherent in this meeting structure - there are a finite number of slots,
>and we perpetually have more takers than we have slots to put them in.
>and we have a finite number of things that we can do about that.
>Part of what we do is review the work being done, and try to determine
>not who MIGHT be interested in using it after it is completed, but who
>IS interested in developing it. To do that, we ask the person proposing
>the BOF to show us his posted internet drafts (which anyone, IETF or
>not, can post at will) and their list of interested parties. If we have
>N slots, we try to give them to the N potential BOF choices that
>(a) we know about at the time we're handing out BOF slots,
>(b) appear from draft count and body count to be viable, and
>(c) from a quick read of the drafts appear to be going in a direction
>    that both works and solves a problem.
>This is certainly imperfect, and if you have suggestions we will
>certainly consider them. But we are not giving one to Tony at this time
>because while there appear to be two companies whose corporate positions
>support Agents, we haven't been able to identify any technologists or
>any other companies who actually want to work on it, and we can't seem
>to find an internet draft that tells us either the problem being solved
>or the solution proposed. And yes, three weeks before the IETF is pretty
>late from a scheduling perspective.