Subject: RE: ISSUE: excessive perfectionism (was Re: ISSUE: Timeframes sho ld be focused on IETF purposes, not markets)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:01:39 +0100

Harald,

I see that you are seeking precision, rather than vague allusions, - which
is what I would prefer too. 

I don't propose that we abdicate our responsibility; rather that we analyse
and record to whom we owe that responsibility.  This must be particularly
pertinent in cases where a specific requirement ( target ) must be
considered in the light of competing/complementary requirements from other
Areas or WGs. 

However, given the turnover in IETF participants and their attendant
interests, if *we* set *our* targets, I believe it has implications for the
mission of the IETF.  There are certainly some these days who want to use
IETF standards for targets other than the Internet per se ( e.g. VPNs ) -
targets which were probably unforeseen when the IETF originally assumed its
mission for the Internet.  Does this mean that the mission of the IETF will
be subject to change to meet *our targets* ?  A changing mission strikes me
as very difficult to fulfil.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Exact

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 12 June 2003 09:21
To: Travers,G,Graham,XVT TRAVERG R; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: ISSUE: excessive perfectionism (was Re: ISSUE: Timeframes
sho ld be focused on IETF purposes, not markets)

--On onsdag, juni 11, 2003 16:48:14 +0100 [email-masked] wrote:

> Keith,
>
> I'm not suggesting that we favour a sub-set; rather that we try to include
> all the *customers* ( stakeholders or users, if you prefer ) that we can
> identify - e.g. vendors, ISPs, researchers, end-users.....
>
> I realise that such a list can not be comprehensive forever, as new types
> of user will emerge;  but it does at least give us a checklist of who we
> should currently be considering.

In a very real sense, I believe the customers of the IETF process are us - 
the IETF participants.

*Our* customers are the ISPs and the end-users, the researchers, the 
enterprises, the governments and the fabric of society itself.

But I think it's *our* responsibility to set our targets; abdicating that 
responsibility to an abstract, unquantifiable notion like "market need" 
will not give us quality, relevant specifications for the Internet.

Abusing random people's names....

I want to accept as vaild input into the target-setting process Jim Bound 
saying "I need the XYZ specification to be completed by August 27, 2004, 
because I have a Sept 1 spec freeze, a 3-month QA cycle, and product 
shipments planned for February 2005 that intend to incorporate that 
functionality".

And I want to also accept as valid input John Loughney saying "XYZ cannot
be completed by August 27, because ABC is barely going to meet its deadline 
of completing its spec by July, so XYZ cannot possibly incorporate that in 
less than 3 months; we can't make a good spec before October".

But I don't want to accept as valid input someone saying "XYZ is urgently 
needed in the market (no background given), so we have to abandon the ABC 
dependency and publish the spec in February 2004 whether it works or not".

See the difference?

                        Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:22:57 +0200

--On torsdag, juni 12, 2003 15:01:39 +0100 [email-masked] wrote:

> I don't propose that we abdicate our responsibility; rather that we
> analyse and record to whom we owe that responsibility.  This must be
> particularly pertinent in cases where a specific requirement ( target )
> must be considered in the light of competing/complementary requirements
> from other Areas or WGs.
>
> interests, if *we* set *our* targets, I believe it has implications for
> the mission of the IETF.  There are certainly some these days who want to
> use IETF standards for targets other than the Internet per se ( e.g. VPNs
> ) - targets which were probably unforeseen when the IETF originally
> assumed its mission for the Internet.  Does this mean that the mission of
> the IETF will be subject to change to meet *our targets* ?  A changing
> mission strikes me as very difficult to fulfil.

that's an issue that I think any open, member-controlled organization has 
to grapple with.... if the membership really, truly wants something 
different from the current stated purposes of the organization, it's nearly 
impossible to prevent them from achieving it.

However, I do think the IETF has a fairly stable core mission and core 
population.... and if we manage to be clearer and more effective in our 
mission, we'll attract more people who agree with that mission, too....