Subject: Controlling the IETF -- Engineers vs. Marketeers and Politeers

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:24:18 -0700

Folks,

The discussion about standards track status highlights a basic source of
disparity in quite a few of our discussions about changing the IETF.

I'm finding myself labeling this disparity "Who is in charge of the
IETF?"

Historically, the IETF has done exceptionally well when it focuses on
the "E".  When we act like engineers who are concerned with engineering
quality and core utility, we do great.

When we wander into the territories of sociology, marketing or politics,
we do very badly.

Input from those three areas can be useful.  But there is a difference
between treating those considerations as "input" and treating them as
"critical concerns that must determine strategic decisions".

There is always someone, somewhere who will abuse our work in some
fashion.  They will tout an I-D as being under IETF consideration; they
will tout an Informational RFC as an IETF standard, they will pressure
the IETF to use small key sizes; etc., etc.

We must not let these people control the IETF.

We need to make sure that the meaning of I-D status is clear and is
applied correctly.  The same for Informational.  We need to make sure
that we choose key sizes that ensure the ability to provide the level of
protection that is needed.  Etc. Etc.

These are engineering factors and they are what we have historically
done well.

When we make strategic decisions because someone, somewhere has
distorted things, we cease to be engineers.  We pretend to be
politicians, marketeers and sociologists.

Let's keep control of our work WITHIN the group doing the work, namely
the iEtf.

Let's discuss changes to the IETF that pertain to doing better
engineering. That means focusing on engineering design quality and the
utility of our specifications. It means focusing on deployment and use.

It does not mean trying to react to "social" abuses and it does not mean
trying to anticipate them.

We have management and quality problems.  Let's fix them.

But let's not be distracted by the folks outside the world of IETF
development and implementation.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:55:45 -0700

Dave,

If we could exclude the marketeers and the politeers from the IETF and from
society...

More comments below.

-Vach

> disparity in quite a few of our discussions about changing the IETF.

When does the world outside the IETF decide that documents are making adequate
progress that they may talk about them?  Typically, when they hit certain
milestones - WG accepts the draft, draft goes to IESG, various RFC labels
attached to document...  These _are_ important for an organization to judge
whether something is worth implementing/deploying/marketing.

> I'm finding myself labeling this disparity "Who is in charge of the

If we let them, then the marketing arms of organizations are.  They are a far
more powerful lobby than engineers have been.

> quality and core utility, we do great.

The best we can do is to ignore the stuff outside the IETF, and prevent
marketing/politics from influencing the IETF.

> "critical concerns that must determine strategic decisions".

Harald posted an email about "fixing" WG chairs and the counterpoint of
"accusations of fixing".  How we deal with those situations is critical to the
independence of IETF decisions from the World Outside the IETF.

Likewise, ballot stuffing, denial of service.

> the IETF to use small key sizes; etc., etc.

Abuse is one thing.  Affecting the integrity of the IETF is another.

> protection that is needed.  Etc. Etc.

I agree.  Clear definitions allow us to correct impressions created by
"marketeers" and "politeers".

> politicians, marketeers and sociologists.

I disagree.  We don't pretend.  We are surely influenced by the organizations we
work for.  I think that our only hope is to define clear processes so we can
create enough organizational influence to prevent ourselves from shooting
ourselves in the foot.  Basically create a set of checks and balances that
ensures that one group doesn't push the IETF the wrong direction.

> Let's keep control of our work WITHIN the group doing the work, namely

It's the Ietf to most people, i.e., there's a lot more riding on the Internet
today than engineering.

> development and implementation.

It does mean reacting to abuses.  It means limiting the impact of those abuses
to outlying instances rather than letting them be the norm.  It means not
putting our heads in the sand about them actually occurring.  It means defending
the IETF against them.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:57:30 -0400

Speaking not as chair but as some other sort of entity, it
seems to me that marketroids, etc., are actually less of a
problem in practice than are people with narrow agendas, a
lack of consensus on what the IETF's job is, etc.  There are
people who have legitimate disagreements about what's "bad
for the internet," but there are also people who don't have
a clue about what's bad for the internet or, conversely, do
have a clue but don't care, or, for that matter, don't have
a clue and don't care.  I'd argue that these are the
tensions that are more likely to cause functional problems
and affect the overall quality of the organization's work.
I liked the description of that problem that John Klensin
posted several days ago.

Melinda

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:33:41 -0700

> ...

i missed the part where marketeers et al. we pushing the ip over
mime document?  who outside is trying to distract us?  or is it
that we need more feeling of "us vs. them" to make us feel good
about ourselves?

randy