Subject: The IETF's problems

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:10:48 +0200

As a relative newcomer (2 years active on a mailinglist for a wg, 
Atlanta was my first IETF meeting and this is my second) this is what I 
think are the IETF's main problems.

To me, it's not very clear whether the IETF wants to be a top-down 
standards organization or a bottom-up place where people with good 
ideas can work together to make those ideas even better. When both the 
IETF leadership and members of the community feel some work is valuable 
there isn't much of a problem, but when people bring work to the IETF 
that the wg chair / area director / IAB infrastructure doesn't 
recognize as important, this often leads to unhappiness. Now obviously 
this is somewhat unavoidable because of the open structure of the IETF: 
"anyone with time on their hands and a keyboard can write a draft". But 
when even large vendors are unable to get protocols that they feel is 
important (and have implemented or are implementing) "through" IETF, 
there is a problem.

The other major problem for the IETF is that it doesn't manage its 
resources very well. The major resource the IETF has is the combined 
intelligence of a large number of very capable individuals, many of 
which are under no obligation to spend time on a given subject, but do 
so because they want to contribute to the community. The only thing the 
IETF has to offer in return is a little (usually very little) 
recognition. The part that I don't understand is that there is no real 
structure for technical review in place. The IETF almost exclusively 
relies on unsollicited comments from the membership at large, and on 
the efforts of the IESG.

Meetings aren't always effectively chaired. People line up at the 
microphones and address any subject they want, rather than that all 
issues are dealt with one at a time. Many other aspects of meetings 
aren't thought out very well either. The overlap in sessions is very 
bad, whith no apparent rhyme or reason. It also seems strange to me 
that there should be fixed breaks for meals. Eg: now wg A and wg B 
overlap, and then we all eat. If wg A and wg B are scheduled after each 
other, people who only want to attend one can still eat, but people who 
really want to attend both can do so if they feel this is important 
enough to skip a meal. (Due to timezone and cultural differences not 
everyone wants to eat at the same time anyway.)

A non-problem: everyone seems to assume that everyone who shows up for 
a session is an active member of the wg. That isn't the case. Many 
people just wander in to see what's happening in a group that seems 
interesting as they're there anyway.

Then there is the fact that the IETF has no collective memory, but only 
a rewind button. There are posts to mailinglists, comments in meetings 
that may or may not be recorded for future generations and drafts that 
are guarantueed to disappear in 6 months, and RFCs. This means any and 
all results either entirely disappear or are relegated to the obscurity 
of long forgotten mailinglist archives, or they must be published as 
RFCs. There is no middle ground.

About the RFCs: there are simply too many. Maybe at some point issuing 
a new RFC number for each update of a document made sense, but 
constantly having to search through the index to find the new number 
for an update (titles could be better too, searching can be hard at 
times) doesn't really increase productivity.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:35:40 -0400

>  But when even large vendors are unable to get protocols that
> they feel is important (and have implemented or are implementing)
> "through" IETF, there is a problem.

Let's get this straight right now.

IETF DOES NOT exist to do what large vendors what to do.  

And large vendors are not reliable indicators of what is good for the
Internet.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:34:13 -0700

Keith

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> Let's get this straight right now.

Oooohhhh - heavy commentary !

> IETF DOES NOT exist to do what large vendors what to do.

yes Keith they are - and in fact the IETF is totally setup to pass the
efforts of a few specific vendors and several educational entities into
standards status. It may not be what's on paper but its what happens in the
real world, and any forensic accountancy that runs an analysis will probably
see that the IETF is pretty regularly used by its larger players to inhibit
other companies from entering the arena.

> And large vendors are not reliable indicators of what is good for the

Again - yes they are... they are the Internet.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:23:56 +0200

> Let's get this straight right now.

Yes, let's. Because whichever party is suffering from the misconception 
here, the result is the same: some people are unhappy with what the 
IETF does because their expectations don't match reality.

> IETF DOES NOT exist to do what large vendors what to do.

I was talking about working on protocols, which isn't the same as "do 
what large vendors want to do". If people in general and large vendors 
in particular come to the IETF wanting to work on something within the 
IETF, and this work falls within the areas of interest of the IETF, 
then it would be a very good idea that the IETF indeed work on this. 
Obviously in some cases the work will be abandoned if the IETF doesn't 
adopt it, which must be the result "the IETF" is after in these cases. 
More often, the work will continue but the resulting protocol will be 
of a lower quality, and if the protocol is even a little successful, 
the IETF has to do something with it later anyway. Also, if the 
protocol is subjected to the IETF editor it goes through the IESG 
anyway, so not working on something often doesn't even save the IESG 
any work. Whether it saves working groups work is immaterial as just 
about everything that happens in a working group is done on a voluntary 
basis.

Last but not least, frustrating people that come to the IETF damages 
the reputation of the IETF and will drive people away in frustration. 
This is already happening. (Again, this includes large vendors and not 
just "hobbyist protocol designers".)

> And large vendors are not reliable indicators of what is good for the

Like _anyone_ can predict what is going to be good for the internet 
anyway. Large vendors are reasonable indicators of what is wanted in 
the internet and what's going to happen in the internet, though. 
They're implementing the stuff most boxes connected to the net will be 
running a couple of years from now.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:38:51 -0400

] >>  But when even large vendors are unable to get protocols that
] >> they feel is important (and have implemented or are implementing)
] >> "through" IETF, there is a problem.
] 
] > Let's get this straight right now.
] 
] Yes, let's. Because whichever party is suffering from the misconception 
] here, the result is the same: some people are unhappy with what the 
] IETF does because their expectations don't match reality.

some people are unhappy with the IETF because their expection does not
match their perception of IETF's behavior. 

or even more succinctly "some people are unhappy with the IETF"

well, big deal.

] If people in general and large vendors 
] in particular come to the IETF wanting to work on something within the 
] IETF, and this work falls within the areas of interest of the IETF, 
] then it would be a very good idea that the IETF indeed work on this. 

I strongly disagree with this as a categorial statement.  Many kinds of work
that people want IETF to do are not "very good ideas".  IETF has been
pressured by powerful concerns to standardize NATs, means of eavesdropping,
bits in IP headers to identify porn, protocols that encourage monopolies or
give one vendor a competitive advantage, protocols that  harm the Internet
architecture and the ability of existing and future applications to use the
Internet, and even protocols that don't interoperate (but which allow vendors
to claim standards compliance).  None of these are good ideas, and IETF should
neither invest its resources in, nor lend its imprimatur to,  bad ideas.

Yes, some people will get frustrated with this.  So be it.  IETF cannot do its
job properly without disappointing people.  Unless IETF says "no" to bad
ideas, there is no reason for IETF to exist.  IETF is useless unless it's
endorsement is a reasonably reliable indication of quality.  Currently, IETF
does not say "no" often enough - and that also has harmed its reputation.

] > And large vendors are not reliable indicators of what is good for the
] > Internet.
] 
] Like _anyone_ can predict what is going to be good for the internet 
] anyway. Large vendors are reasonable indicators of what is wanted in 
] the internet and what's going to happen in the internet, though.

I disagree with that also.  Large vendors do not represent their customers'
interests, and they never have.  Quite often the interests of large vendors
are diametrically opposite of their customers'.  Large vendors want to
maximize profit, customers want to maximize value.  Large vendors want to lock
in their customers, customers want flexibility.  etc.  Which is part of why
IETF rules stipulate that participants must act in the best interests of the
Internet as a whole.
 
] They're implementing the stuff most boxes connected to the net will be 
] running a couple of years from now.

The stuff may be in those boxes, and people may even try to use it.  But that
doesn't mean it's deserving of standardization or endorsement.  There's a lot
of garbage in deployed products.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:19:15 -0700

Keith - who are you or the IETF to make any commentary or anything else as
to what technologies are made available for use on the Internet. You nor
your management are empowered to govern the Internet and as such your
actions here constitute an restraint of trade if their are implemented as
policy.

Todd

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:59:20 +0800

we dont decide what technologies are made available for use on the 
Internet.

but we can choose the work we want to do, and RFC we want to publish.

ps: My view is that so long there is sufficient interest (or rough 
consensus) in any work, whether it comes from a large vendor or not is 
irrelevant. In fact, if a good idea comes a large vendor and people are 
interested to work on it, all the more we should.

james

todd glassey wrote:
>>I strongly disagree with this as a categorial statement.  Many kinds of
> 
> work
> 
>>pressured by powerful concerns to standardize NATs, means of
> 
> eavesdropping,
> 
>>bits in IP headers to identify porn, protocols that encourage monopolies
> 
> or
> 
>>architecture and the ability of existing and future applications to use
> 
> the
> 
>>Internet, and even protocols that don't interoperate (but which allow
> 
> vendors
> 
>>to claim standards compliance).  None of these are good ideas, and IETF
> 
> should
> 
>>Yes, some people will get frustrated with this.  So be it.  IETF cannot do
> 
> its
> 
>>endorsement is a reasonably reliable indication of quality.  Currently,
> 
> IETF
> 
>>I disagree with that also.  Large vendors do not represent their
> 
> customers'
> 
>>interests, and they never have.  Quite often the interests of large
> 
> vendors
> 
>>maximize profit, customers want to maximize value.  Large vendors want to
> 
> lock
> 
>>in their customers, customers want flexibility.  etc.  Which is part of
> 
> why
> 
>>IETF rules stipulate that participants must act in the best interests of
> 
> the
> 
>>Internet as a whole.
>>
>>The stuff may be in those boxes, and people may even try to use it.  But
> 
> that
> 
>>doesn't mean it's deserving of standardization or endorsement.  There's a
> 
> lot
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:24:55 -0400

] My view is that so long there is sufficient interest (or rough 
] consensus) in any work, whether it comes from a large vendor or not is 
] irrelevant. In fact, if a good idea comes a large vendor and people are 
] interested to work on it, all the more we should.

I don't care whether the idea comes from a large vendor or not, as long as
it's a good idea.   And I agree that the investment of energy by a large 
vendor can go a long way to help make a good idea successful.

However I don't believe that "sufficient interest" is a reliable indicator of
which ideas merit IETF investment of energy.  I'm not even sure I'd accept
"rough consensus" as such an indicator.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:21:13 +0200

> well, big deal.

Yes, this is a big deal. The IETF can't be all things to all people, 
but I think it's a reasonable request for the IETF to clearly state 
what it will do and what it won't do, who makes this dicision and on 
what basis.

> that people want IETF to do are not "very good ideas".

True. But the IETF still needs to work on it. When writing, they tell 
you that if someone comments on something in your story, you should 
always take this seriously. The comment itself is usually not something 
you can immediately use, as most people aren't good writers so they 
don't know how to solve writing problems. But most people are decent 
readers so when they feel compelled to comment you can be pretty sure 
there is a problem. The same applies here: if people want to create a 
bad protocol, there is probably some real problem that needs to be 
solved with a _good_ protocol.

> IETF has been pressured by powerful concerns to standardize NATs, 
> means of eavesdropping, bits in IP headers to identify porn, protocols 
> that encourage monopolies or give one vendor a competitive advantage, 
> protocols that  harm the Internet architecture and the ability of 
> existing and future applications to use the Internet, and even 
> protocols that don't interoperate (but which allow vendors

Obviously there are always people who'll try to exploit something for 
personal gain. I have enough trust in both the leadership and the 
participants within the IETF to assume these people won't get very far.

I'll ignore the architecture stuff here as this could fill a 
mailinglist of its own. The NAT pressure seems to have been effective: 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nat-charter.html I'm not familiar 
with porn bits, but I can see how something like this could be 
transformed into PICS, which is a perfectly legitimate mechanism that 
addresses a very valid need.

Then there is the lawful interception ("eavesdropping") thing. After a 
lot of discussion the IETF came up with a very solid position on this: 
we don't want to put eavesdropping capabilities in our protocols as 
this leads to weaker protocols. But governments are requiring now 
network operators to make lawful interception possible in their 
networks. Now one way to do this would be to simply put in fiber 
splitters all over the place and more or less build a shadow network 
that routes copies of all traffic to a place where the required subset 
can be handed over to the government. A slightly cheaper solution would 
be to have existing equipment copy the "interesting" traffic and only 
forward the copies to the handover location. I fully agree that it 
would be much better if this weren't necessary, because it's a big 
hassle and it still costs a lot of money. But most of us are living in 
democracies, and our administrations and parliaments have decided that 
this is necessary. This takes care of the "if", "when", "why" and "who 
pays for it" so the only remaining question is the "how".

I would argue that the IETF is _the_ place to work this out, because:

- the IETF has vast experience with IP in general
- and IP security in particular
- (nearly?) all IP vendors participate in the IETF
- the IETF process is open and transparent
- the IETF standards are available to anyone anywhere without limitation

If you want to see what can happen if a non-IETF entity does this, go 
to http://www.opentap.org/documents.php3 and have a look at version 
0.1.2 of the TIIT specs. (Version 1.0.0 was created after several 
vendors had tried to implement 0.1.2.)

> does not say "no" often enough - and that also has harmed its 

This depends on what the IETF wants to be. Does it want to be the 
guardian of the internet protocols? Does it _only_ want to be this? It 
seems to me that a very important function of the IETF is to get 
vendors together to work out ideas. Now the IETF can pre-judge ideas 
and only allow the "good" ones (or rather, it could if there were 48 
hours in the day) but I don't think this is a good idea. Let people 
work on their stuff within the IETF. This allows new ideas to seep into 
the IETF as well as long-time IETF principles to seep into these new 
protocols. Then, when the new protocols are as good as they're going to 
get, the IETF leadership can have some of the resident experts look the 
whole thing over and decide to lend its approval to the protocol or 
not. This way, the IETF doesn't need a crystal ball to see what's going 
to happen to a protocol in the future and even when a protocol isn't 
approved it has still benefited from the IETF's input. Last but not 
least, by also applying this methodology to "homegrown" protocols the 
IETF gets to raise the quality level of the protocols that are approved 
while at the same time being able to take on projects where success 
isn't automatically guaranteed.

Alternatively, the IETF can go on the way it's doing now and not before 
long vendors will find other venues to get together for this kind of 
stuff.

> IETF rules stipulate that participants must act in the best interests 

That's all very nice but reality is that the IETF writes protocols, and 
vendors implement a subset of the body of the IETF's protocols and then 
add some of their own. Customers then use a subset of what vendors 
implemented. This makes the IETF's influence over what happens on the 
internet indirect by two layers. If vendors come to the IETF that means 
they're at least open to _some_ criticism, so the IETF shouldn't turn 
them away unless there is a fairly clear intention of abuse of the IETF 
process.

> of garbage in deployed products.

What's worse than a bad standard? A bad standard with non-interoperable 
implementations. (Yes, operations work has its downsides.) Having 
people work inside the IETF and lending endorsement are two very 
different things.

As long as we're listing problems: the whole RFC status thing is lost 
on pretty much everyone. Stop publishing informational and experimental 
RFCs.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:25:11 -0400

] On zaterdag, jul 19, 2003, at 15:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Keith Moore wrote:
] 
] > some people are unhappy with the IETF because their expection does not
] > match their perception of IETF's behavior.
] 
] > or even more succinctly "some people are unhappy with the IETF"
] 
] > well, big deal.
] 
] Yes, this is a big deal. The IETF can't be all things to all people, 
] but I think it's a reasonable request for the IETF to clearly state 
] what it will do and what it won't do, who makes this dicision and on 
] what basis.

Defining IETF's scope is a good idea - if nothing else it will save energy
when we need to explain why IETF is not taking on something it considers
outside its scope.

As for who makes the decision, that's already clear from existing documents.

As for the basis on which these decisions are made, there are several
factors - technical merit, evidence of willing and capable volunteers,
availability of resources, perceived liklihood of success, and perceived
benefit to the community as a whole being foremost among them.  And these are
inherently subjective.  If it helps to write these down, fine, but they should
be obvious.
 
] > ] If people in general and large vendors
] > ] in particular come to the IETF wanting to work on something within 
] > the
] > ] IETF, and this work falls within the areas of interest of the IETF,
] > ] then it would be a very good idea that the IETF indeed work on this.
] 
] > I strongly disagree with this as a categorial statement.  Many kinds 
] > of work that people want IETF to do are not "very good ideas".
] 
] True. But the IETF still needs to work on it.

As a generalization, I strongly disagree.  (There may be specific cases where
I would agree).  But in general, we simply do not have enough resources to
work on bad ideas.  Even explaining why they're bad ideas sometimes takes too
much work.

] The same applies here: if people want to create a 
] bad protocol, there is probably some real problem that needs to be 
] solved with a _good_ protocol.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Sometimes there's a real problem to be solved
and a real benefit to the community from solving it.   If we can harness that
interest in solving the problem and use it to produce a good solution, 
obviously that's a good thing.  But quite often, we are pressured to endorse
"solutions" that will only do harm.  And far too often we form working groups
to solve intractable problems, or working groups that are overwhelmingly
staffed by people who are dedicated to "solving" a problem in a technically
unsound way, in a misguided attempt to try to minimize the harm. 

] > IETF has been pressured by powerful concerns to standardize NATs, 
] > means of eavesdropping, bits in IP headers to identify porn, protocols 
] > that encourage monopolies or give one vendor a competitive advantage, 
] > protocols that  harm the Internet architecture and the ability of 
] > existing and future applications to use the Internet, and even 
] > protocols that don't interoperate (but which allow vendors
] > to claim standards compliance).  None of these are good ideas, and 
] > IETF should
] > neither invest its resources in, nor lend its imprimatur to,  bad 
] > ideas.
] 
] Obviously there are always people who'll try to exploit something for 
] personal gain. I have enough trust in both the leadership and the 
] participants within the IETF to assume these people won't get very far.

There are many more root causes of stupidity than individual greed.

] I'll ignore the architecture stuff here as this could fill a 
] mailinglist of its own. The NAT pressure seems to have been effective: 
] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nat-charter.html 

Sometimes the pressure does result in a WG being created, and often this turns
out to have been a bad idea.  The NAT WG has been a disaster, doing far more
harm than good.  Zeroconf is another example.

] I'm not familiar 
] with porn bits, but I can see how something like this could be 
] transformed into PICS, which is a perfectly legitimate mechanism that 
] addresses a very valid need.

People wanted to be able to filter porn on a per-packet basis.  We told them
that this wasn't appropriate, and that labelling of content wasn't our
problem, and they should take their efforts elsewhere.  Telling them that was
a wise thing for us to do.  PICS hasn't been very effective, but at least IETF
didn't get bogged down with working on it, and was able to spend its energies
on other, hopefully more useful, pursuits.

] Then there is the lawful interception ("eavesdropping") thing. After a 
] lot of discussion the IETF came up with a very solid position on this: 
] we don't want to put eavesdropping capabilities in our protocols as 
] this leads to weaker protocols. But governments are requiring now 
] network operators to make lawful interception possible in their 
] networks. Now one way to do this would be to simply put in fiber 
] splitters all over the place and more or less build a shadow network 
] that routes copies of all traffic to a place where the required subset 
] can be handed over to the government. A slightly cheaper solution would 
] be to have existing equipment copy the "interesting" traffic and only 
] forward the copies to the handover location. I fully agree that it 
] would be much better if this weren't necessary, because it's a big 
] hassle and it still costs a lot of money. But most of us are living in 
] democracies, and our administrations and parliaments have decided that 
] this is necessary. 

IETF's job is to do what makes sense for the Internet and its users, not to
provide mechanisms that governments demand -  especially not when they are
not based in technical sanity, and not when they conflict with the interests 
of Internet users.  These days it is clear that the demands of governments,
even so-called democratic governments, are often in opposition to the
interests of their citizens.   IETF should not assume that government demands
are legitimate, and we should not try to decide which government demands are
legitimate and which aren't.  We should do what we think is best for the
Internet.

] I would argue that the IETF is _the_ place to work this out, because:
] 
] - the IETF has vast experience with IP in general
] - and IP security in particular
] - (nearly?) all IP vendors participate in the IETF
] - the IETF process is open and transparent
] - the IETF standards are available to anyone anywhere without limitation

Ah yes, and just ignore the technical infeasibility, ignore governments'
abuses of existing eavesdropping measures, and ignore the interests of the
Internet community.  Just give the governments what they need to monitor and
control people and pretend that everything will be okay.

There is no civil way to adequately respond to this.  But I will do everything
in my power to keep IETF from being subverted to these ends.
 
] If you want to see what can happen if a non-IETF entity does this, go 
] to http://www.opentap.org/documents.php3 and have a look at version 
] 0.1.2 of the TIIT specs. (Version 1.0.0 was created after several 
] vendors had tried to implement 0.1.2.)

Feel free to help them if you want to.  Just do it elsewhere.

] > Yes, some people will get frustrated with this.  So be it.  IETF 
] > cannot do its job properly without disappointing people.  Unless IETF says
] > "no" to  bad ideas, there is no reason for IETF to exist.  IETF is useless
] > unless  it's endorsement is a reasonably reliable indication of quality.  
] > Currently, IETF does not say "no" often enough - and that also has harmed
] > its  reputation.
] This depends on what the IETF wants to be. Does it want to be the 
] guardian of the internet protocols? Does it _only_ want to be this? It 
] seems to me that a very important function of the IETF is to get 
] vendors together to work out ideas. Now the IETF can pre-judge ideas 
] and only allow the "good" ones (or rather, it could if there were 48 
] hours in the day) but I don't think this is a good idea.

Of course, you haven't tried to manage IETF's meager resources.  You have no
idea how thinly spread we are.

] Alternatively, the IETF can go on the way it's doing now and not before 
] long vendors will find other venues to get together for this kind of 
] stuff.

It's been happening for many years.  Sometimes those efforts succeed, often
they fail for lack of backing or failure to anticipate some need.  IETF cannot
take on everything anyway.  We might as well try to do what good we can,
within our areas of interest and expertise.  But in order for IETF to
accomplish anything useful it must be selective in choosing where to invest
its energy.

] 
] > ] Like _anyone_ can predict what is going to be good for the internet
] > ] anyway. Large vendors are reasonable indicators of what is wanted in
] > ] the internet and what's going to happen in the internet, though.
] > I disagree with that also.  Large vendors do not represent their 
] > customers' interests, and they never have.  Quite often the interests of
] > large  vendors are diametrically opposite of their customers'.  Large
] > vendors want to maximize profit, customers want to maximize value.  Large 
] > vendors  want to lock in their customers, customers want flexibility. 
] > etc.  Which is part of why IETF rules stipulate that participants must 
] > act in  the best interests of the Internet as a whole.

] That's all very nice but reality is that the IETF writes protocols, and 
] vendors implement a subset of the body of the IETF's protocols and then 
] add some of their own. Customers then use a subset of what vendors 
] implemented. This makes the IETF's influence over what happens on the 
] internet indirect by two layers. If vendors come to the IETF that means 
] they're at least open to _some_ criticism, so the IETF shouldn't turn 
] them away unless there is a fairly clear intention of abuse of the IETF 
] process.

Experience indicates that attempts to steer vendors away from bad ideas within
IETF often fail.  Sometimes they do work.  It's a judgement call.

But the bottom line is that IETF should decide where to concentrate its 
energies - and should not consider itself bound by either the interests
of large vendors or governments.
 
] > There's a lot of garbage in deployed products.
] 
] What's worse than a bad standard? A bad standard with non-interoperable 
] implementations. 

Stongly disagree. Sometimes lack of interoperability is a good thing,
if it limits the ability of a bad protocol to be deployed, or if it provides
incentives to replace a bad protocol. In the short term operations people pull
their hair out trying to make shortsighted ideas work in practice, and that's
unfortunate.  But IETF needs to be primarily focused  on medium- or long-term
concerns, not spend its energies trying to fix every  poorly-desinged vendor
protocol out there.

] Having people work inside the IETF and lending endorsement are two very 
] different things.

Yes they are.  But unfortunately when people do work in IETF they expect IETF
to endorse that work even when the work is a failure.

] As long as we're listing problems: the whole RFC status thing is lost 
] on pretty much everyone. Stop publishing informational and experimental 
] RFCs.

Another shortsighted idea.  

Keith

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:11:40 +0200

> inherently subjective.  If it helps to write these down, fine, but 

How can they be obvious?

I'll get into this a bit more on the "solutions" list but the way I see 
it is that the IETF should say: sure, we'll put up a mailinglist, we'll 
give you a slot in a room to talk about this during meetings and we'll 
accept drafts if IETF participants from at least X different 
organizations support this. When you're ready for this you get to 
propose the protocol to a working group that may or may not accept it 
as a work item. If the wg accepts it, at some point the IESG will have 
the work reviewed and it can be published as a draft standard. If not, 
then it may be published as experimental or informational.

> ] > Many kinds  of work that people want IETF to do are not "very good 
> ideas".

> work on bad ideas.  Even explaining why they're bad ideas sometimes 

That's why it doesn't make sense to evaluate each and every proposal or 
-00 draft. But if participants from at least three or so organizations 
work on something for 6 months or a year and they all feel the protocol 
has merit, I think it's reasonable to spend some time looking at this. 
As for resources: the IETF has thousands of participants. I'm sure at 
least a few hundred are prepared to review proposed protocols from time 
to time, especially if they know their opinion really counts because 
they're "official" reviewers rather than the current situation where 
everyone must decide for themselves if they want to review something 
and there is no way to know whether this input will be taken in 
consideration by the powers that be.

> "solutions" that will only do harm.

Obviously the IETF leadership should be capable of withstanding this 
type of pressure. And letting it simmer in a non-endorsed "ad hoc 
group" or whatever we want to call it probably gets rid of a fair share 
of bad proposals because those will very likely draw the attention of 
private participants with opinions on the matter without the need for 
formal action by the leadership.

> And far too often we form working groups

If you can get something into a wg then you're well on your way to 
having it endorsed by "the IETF". So let people work on it outside a wg 
and then when there is plenty of opportunity to say "yea" or "nay". 
This forces people to work on the technical side of protocols first 
rather than getting something inside a wg.

> legitimate and which aren't.  We should do what we think is best for 

Missing the point by a wide margin...

Operators must take certain actions because these are demanded by 
governments. (This isn't entirely unreasonable by the way: do we want 
the internet to be a place where people can break the law in ways they 
can't elsewhere?) So operators look to their vendors to implement 
certain functionality. Yes, this sucks, but it's going to happen 
anyway. But let's at least standardize the handover interfaces so 
operators / mediation implementers only have to spend money on 
implementing this once.

> Ah yes, and just ignore the technical infeasibility,

Nonsense. It's done today. But in proprietary ways that are more 
expensive than necessary.

> ignore governments' abuses of existing eavesdropping measures,

People sometimes pull the emergency break for no good reason. Rip them 
out then.

This is a non-technical issue that must be addressed through 
nont-technical means.

> and ignore the interests of the Internet community.  Just give the 
> governments what they need to monitor and control people and pretend 
> that everything will be okay.

On the internet everyone is nice so we don't need law enforcement. Yeah 
right.

> in my power to keep IETF from being subverted to these ends.

This is a balancing act. You don't want to give unlimited power to 
governments because power corrupts and it _will_ be abused at some 
point. On the other hand, you don't want to leave governments powerless 
because that leaves us with the law of the jungle. Obviously different 
people are going to favor different tradoffs, but I think one where 
people get to use strong crypto, but governments have the ability to 
monitor the encrypted traffic under certain circumstances is a fair way 
to do it. This makes casual intrusion of privacy by governments very 
hard, but when necessary, it's still possible to uncover networks and 
gather information that can likely be decrypted and used as evidence 
later if and when the keys are recovered using more traditional 
techniques (search warrant).

The IETF did the right thing twice before by creating protocols that 
allow strong encryption, and then refuse to add backdoors. Now it's 
time to do the right thing a third time by standardizing handover and 
provisioning protocols so operators can fullfil their obligations under 
the law in the most cost-effective and safest possible way.

> Feel free to help them if you want to.  Just do it elsewhere.

:-)

The real question is: do YOU want your ISP to have this stuff in their 
network?

> ] Now the IETF can pre-judge ideas

> idea how thinly spread we are.

So let the participants earn their keep. Submit a draft? Review two 
others. With enough reviews for each protocol and for each reviewer, 
there shouldn't be much problems in determining which reviews have a 
high statistical likelihood of being "good".

> of large vendors or governments.

The way things are going now is a road leading nowhere: just reading 
all the drafts that come out is a full time job. So either _really_ do 
this and limit what's being done under the umbrella of the IETF by an 
order of magnitude or so, or remove the pretense of any selection on 
the input side but focus on the output side after the useful (which may 
or may not equal "good") ideas have floated to the surface. I can 
imagine a system where the IESG has time to evaluate n proposals (where 
n can be increased by not trying to do the full technical review inside 
the IESG) per unit of time so it simply evaluates the n proposals with 
the most support from the IETF membership at large. (Where membership 
could be "showed up at the meeting" or something else.)

> incentives to replace a bad protocol.

If the protocol isn't bad enough that it carries an inherent incentive 
for replacement, then maybe it's not so bad after all.

> In the short term operations people pull
> unfortunate.

That's what we need, operations people with less hair...

> But IETF needs to be primarily focused  on medium- or long-term

Don't fix it. Give them a mailinglist and a meeting room and a 
whiteboard. They are big boys and girls so they can do this themselves. 
The good stuff will float to the surface.

> to endorse that work even when the work is a failure.

I think there is rough consensus on what should be done in these cases.

> Another shortsighted idea.

Maybe. But with close to 3000 RFCs out there and nearly noone knowing 
which are jokes, which are curiosities, which are [the list goes on] 
and which are standards, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:16:47 -0400

since most of this is not in scope for problem-statement - either it
is solution space or something else entirely - I'll make my public
reply brief, and reply privately in more detail.

- your proposed solutions for managing increased workload will not scale,
nor will they ensure technical soundness.
- you are being unrealistic in expecting IETF to take on every bit of
work for which there is interest, even if IETF doesn't give them a working
group
- it is not in the interests of the Internet, nor in the interest of IETF,
for IETF to support the efforts of governments to use the Internet for
surveillance.  no matter how well-intended, IETF will not be able to limit 
the efforts of governments who wish to use this capability inappropriately.
IETF work in this area can at best be a waste of its energy, and at worst 
lend support to corrupt governments.
- rough consensus is not a reliable indicator of protocol quality, nor a
sufficient condition for standardization.

and for the one topic relevant to problem-statement:

- I agree that with so many RFCs the distinction between the various
kinds of status is unclear.  however experimental and informational
RFCs are useful as supplemental material to standards documents, 
and for other purposes, so I do not agree with your proposed solution.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:16:05 +0200

> reply brief, and reply privately in more detail.

Ok.

> nor will they ensure technical soundness.

You are right that creating a structured way for the membership at 
large to review doesn't magically solve everything. But I'm pretty sure 
it will at least help. More when I've subscribed to the solutions list.

> work for which there is interest, even if IETF doesn't give them a 

Ok, I guess I am. However, the current situation is very problematic, 
as the filter that must let in useful new work and keep out 
not-so-useful new work doesn't really do its job. I would even like to 
go so far as it keeps out new people to a very large degree while those 
in the inner circle can pretty much put anything they want on the 
agenda.

> lend support to corrupt governments.

How stubborn can one person be?

1. The law says operators must be capable of X.
2. In order to do X, operators need capability Y from their equipment.
3. A vendor comes to the IETF and says: let's standardize a protocol 
for doing Y.

Now how is frustrating 3. going to keep X from happening???

In fact, failing to create a way to limit interception to only that 
which falls withing the scope of the warrant almost guarantees 
governments will end up with more intercepted data than they asked for. 
How can this be a good thing?

> and for other purposes, so I do not agree with your proposed solution.

I think we've been miscommunicating here. I didn't mean these shouldn't 
be published anymore, just that they shouldn't share a namespace with 
standards documents. I completely agree that there is lots of useful 
supplemental material. However, not nearly enough of it is published in 
a structured way. For instance, I can understand why someone would 
think the deletion of drafts is a good idea, but in practice this 
really doesn't help with anything.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:24:27 -0400

> 1. The law says operators must be capable of X.

yes, how stubborn can one person be?

just because a government passes a law doesn't mean IETF should expend its
energy to try to help them.  there are lots of corrupt governments, and lots
of bad laws, neither of which are deserving of IETF support.  nor is there 
anything IETF can do to limit the harm that will be done.

the most we should do is to say "nothing has changed since we issued RFC 1984"

now, can we please get back to the topic of this list?

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:38:45 +0200

> energy to try to help them.

There is a little more going on than just one government passing a law.

And it's certainly not about helping governments, it's about helping 
service providers and smaller vendors. Cisco is trying to do the 
responsible thing here by coming to the IETF to standardize this stuff.

> now, can we please get back to the topic of this list?

This is a prime example of the topic of this list: the IETF is unable 
to determine what it should work on and what it shouldn't work on in a 
satisfactory way.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:28:38 -0400

> to determine what it should work on and what it shouldn't work on in a 

The discussion itself isn't doing much to distill the topic
down to document text, and we need to stay focused.  Do you
feel that existing text regarding scope in the problem
statement document is inadequate?

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:51:59 -0400

> > just because a government passes a law doesn't mean IETF should
> > expend its energy to try to help them.
> 

yes, there are lots of governments trying to conduct mass surveillance
on people.  that still doesn't mean IETF should help them.

> service providers and smaller vendors. 

no, it's about not wasting IETF energy by investing it in areas where
it can only do harm.

> Cisco is trying to do the 

Cisco is trying to get IETF backing for an irresponsible activity. 
What Cisco does is its own business, but IETF shouldn't be goaded
into supporting it just because Cisco does it - particuarly when
nothing useful can come of it and when it is inconsistent with IETF's
goals.

> to determine what it should work on and what it shouldn't work on in a

it's a prime example of why we shouldn't work on something just because
large vendors want us to.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:59:49 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> but we can choose the work we want to do, and RFC we want to publish.

No James you cannot. You can decide what you personally want to work on but
the instant you try and stop someone elses initiative you become a legal
problem to the organization. The ISTE is not your personal resource, in fact
the vetting resource is not the IETF's at all. It belongsx to the
participants, and any refusal to allow any protocol or submission in is a
problem.

Ask Jorge if you doubt this.

> interested to work on it, all the more we should.

Cool - I also have very similar views, and I also see that it is irrelevent
where a submission comes from as long as its properly disclosed. Myself, I
think that caveat emptor is the watchword here anyway so... But the real
issue here is that the IETF has essentially used itself to lock any numbe
rof initiatives out of the running becuase one of the sponsers already had
an initiative underway there or had a financial interest in not losing their
"champion" for lack of a better word.

Unfortunately, what this has made is an Oligarchy of sorts of the IETF and
its initiatives. There is no way to retire a standard, nor any possibiliy
for any upstart to realistically bring a protocol through fruition in the
IETF's process if any of the established players dont want it to happen...
I suggest that you read the document I just submitted to the I-D desk called
Fair and Open RFC2026... Its an analysis of the terms fair and open and an
analysis of the language used in RFC2026 and what it mandates as far as
acceptable IETF processes.

Except that its bounced several times already... for some reason...

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:39:25 -0700

Melinda,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> statement document is inadequate?

the cause(s) of the problem here is that the IETF is not an entity that has
a brain nor an opinion. It is by its charter and definition, an "Open and
Fair" standards process... and as such the IETF provides a platform for
moving those initiatives submitted within it to satisfaction of a preset
series of goals or milestones.

It, the IETF then is an organization and one by pure definition that gets no
opinion on anything, except as to whether the cafeteria style checklist
items for any given initiative are completed and nothing more. This is the
key failing of the IETF in that WG Chairs have used it to set what they will
and wont work on and this has caused probably billions of dollars in damages
to companies that tried to work with the IETF and were shutdown.

As to whether this phenomenum is real or not, I personally lost about 4M in
equity in Coastek primarily from what the VC's told us becuase PKIX refused
to hear another timestamping protocol back when the original one was
proposed in 1997.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:45:26 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> on people.  that still doesn't mean IETF should help them.

The IETF is not to stop them either. The IETF is a standards process not the
morality or ethics keeper of the Internet unless you and your sponsers want
to pay damage claims from the rest of us.

> no, it's about not wasting IETF energy by investing it in areas where

No its not. Its about people like you being able to say what is and is not
woked on. The only way to describe the effect herein is "restraint of trade"
and "tortuous interferance with the operations of a business" that is
dependant on the IETF's open and fair services.

> nothing useful can come of it and when it is inconsistent with IETF's

I agree with you here personally as far as Cisco's initiatives go, but I
also want to state that Cisco's initiatives have the same weight as all
others here and should be the same. So they like anyone else that completes
the process should be able to get a standard issued against their wares.

its up to the marketplace and not the IETF to determine what is and is not
the dominent player.

> large vendors want us to.

But your push back essentially allows you to state that the IETF can decided
what and what it does not want to work on and that likewise is a restraint
of trade development.

Todd

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:16:48 +0800

> participants, and any refusal to allow any protocol or submission in is a

We (as in IETF) can decide what we want to do or not, like it or not, as 
a group. If someone comes along and say they have a solution for world 
hunger and wants to publish it as an RFC, we will tell them "go away".

Proposals not accepted in IETF can seek out other groups or they are 
free to deploy it anyway. IETF could not and will not step them. It is 
not a legal problem.

-James Seng

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:30:24 -0700

James - you have illustrated one of the key problems facing the IETF and
that is that it is NOT a fair and open platform for standards processes.

todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>; "Keith Moore"
<[email-masked]>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> > the instant you try and stop someone else's initiative you become a
legal
> > problem to the organization. The IETF is not your personal resource, in
fact
> > the vetting resource is not the IETF's at all. It belongs to the

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:39:11 +0800

RFC for world hunger? of course not!

the only time you actually going to see an RFC for world hunger is 
probably on 1st April.

Maybe you can try world hunger problem in OASIS? They were suppose to be 
"fair and open platform".

james

todd glassey wrote:

>>>No James you cannot. You can decide what you personally want to work on
> 
> but
> 
>>>participants, and any refusal to allow any protocol or submission in is
> 
> a
> 
>>>problem.
>>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:07:21 -0400

Todd - 

This working group and this mailing list exist to execute
two specific pieces of work.  It is not a general forum for
griping about the IETF.  This is your second warning today
(the first being Avri's).

Everybody else - 

please exercise some judgment about becoming involved with
off-topic discussions.

Melinda

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:35:06 +0200

> statement document is inadequate?

Not sure what you mean by scope.

However, many of the "root" problems in the problems draft aren't that 
fundamental. The three most fundamental problems I see are:

- the IETF doesn't know what it wants to be: a "real" standards 
organization or some kind of a grass roots movement
- inability to make decisions other than just wait until there is 
agreement or come up with convoluted processes that only work because 
people are forced to interact until they somehow solve the problem
- inability to manage resources effectively and efficiently

Iljitsch

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:20:21 -0700

Melinda - All -
I have a question, and that is "do you consider the IETF's not formally
allowing more than one standard track item per/WG per/initiative-scope" a
problem?, because I do, and I consider it a serious one at that. What I am
referring to is the fundamental issue of whether WG's should be allowed to
limit the number of initiatives on any one track to one, and my take is that
the answer here is NO.

My reasons for asking this are that RFC2026 and 2223 as well as 2418 all
talk about the scope and process of the standards model, but none of them
really have any process for one effort to supersede another unless that
effort is done by the people "owning" that spot originally. There are no
"hostile takeover guidelines" or processes, and that means that any
evolution of challenge of a commercially used protocol has to have the
blessings of the WG Chair and those that already own that standing in a WG
(This of course pertains to existing protocols predominantly).

So look - here is an example, Say I have a protocol for "Whiz-Banging" and
there is already a protocol on track inside a WG that Whiz-Bangs but in a
different manner. So the question is whether the IETF can support two or
more Whiz-Banging implementations, or only one, because if the answer is
"only one" then we need to also have a method for how would anyone introduce
the second Whiz-Banging protocol to the IETF to compete with the other?

The problem is that the answer is today that functionally that this will
never happen. And it is because it is very very unlikely that the folks with
their Whiz-Banging Protocol are going to want to roll-over and die...

So then what happens??? The challenging Whiz-Banger is submitted to the I-D
staff as a disclosure. The I-D staff go to the WG Chair who makes a judgment
that they will not allow that protocol to harm the one that has already
gotten investment from them and the others in their WG, so now the WG Chair
takes an active role in suppressing the challenging effort. But say the I-D
issues get past the WG Chair, so then perhaps with the current model the I-D
staff also decide that they don't want to publish this draft because it
competes with an already in-process or existing standard or standards-track
participant. So this is yet another hurdle to publication and an issue. So
now they as well are part of a restraint of trade development process as
well.

So the question simply is where does this end?  Just how does the IETF allow
for a competitive effort, since anything else seems to have serious legal
issues with restraint of market development (the building of standards is a
key part of this). Or is this just not of importance to this IETF?

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:20:43 -0500

Ummm, but we DO have competing documents. I think we're more likely
to do them in parallel working groups (see IMPP/SIMPLE/XMPP for
running code), and that's probably better anyway (less mud-slinging
within a working group), but don't even START on how many IPv6
transition mechanisms we have, or how many MANETs we have, or ...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:45:30 -0700

The problem is that this is not consistent across all WG's - And AD's are
really the last word still on whether a competitive WG was created.

What I am trying to illustrate here Spencer is that the really fair process
involves creating an initiative based on the ability to field a team of
vetting resources. So if there is a WG that has 200 people subscribed to it,
how many of then actually work on any given initiative? the numbers will
surprise you and the list archive bears all this out.

The real issue is then creating a formal requirement for all WG's to
participate in the process equally and allow for any number of initiatives
as long as the work gets done.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

> > issues with restraint of market development (the building of standards
is

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:01:05 +0200

> really the last word still on whether a competitive WG was created.

[...]

> as long as the work gets done.

What I don't get is why the IESG should be involved in managing the wgs 
in the first place.

> Subject: Re: The IETF's problems

And as long as we're talking about problems: what is this "let's repeat 
everyhting I'm replying to verbatim" nonsens all about? I feel like I'm 
emailing with a bunch of three year olds that have been online for all 
of five minutes sometimes.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:17:28 -0400

> What I don't get is why the IESG should be involved in managing the
> wgs in the first place.

because, left to themselves, WGs will happily create things that
don't satisfy various requirements (such as security), or which
interfere with other parties' interests (like zeroconf or nat WGs
trying to fundamentally change the way IP works), and then the WGs will
get very annoyed when they only learn *after* they think they're done
why IESG (for quite valid reasons) refuses to approve their documents
and their work isn't even fixable.

what I don't get is why anyone could think that WGs should be allowed to
make standards without some broad-based oversight.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:56:41 +0200

> and their work isn't even fixable.

I don't think the annoyance can be avoided in cases like this. All this 
work just to move the moment when this happens around doesn't seem like 
a very effective use of time and energy.

And does the current way of doing this really work?

And what's the problem with zeroconf anyway?

> make standards without some broad-based oversight.

The current way of doing this doesn't work very well. If someone can 
come up with something better, that would be great. If not... then we 
need to be more radical.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:02:02 -0400

> a very effective use of time and energy.

so if you're trying to go somewhere, you'd rather just start out travelling in
a random direction, and wait until you think you should be there to find out
that your course is 90 degress off?

> And does the current way of doing this really work?

not as well as we'd like.  that's one of our biggest problems.

> And what's the problem with zeroconf anyway?

it breaks widely-held assumptions about the scope and stability of IPv4
addresses.

> > what I don't get is why anyone could think that WGs should be allowed 
> > to make standards without some broad-based oversight.
> 

so if banging your head against a foam pillow doesn't work, try banging it
against a brick wall?

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:53:48 +0800

It is good to be inconsistent. Different areas, different wgs, different 
requirements. Some can have one, some can have more then one.

-James Seng

todd glassey wrote:

>>>allowing more than one standard track item per/WG per/initiative-scope"
> 
> a
> 
>>>problem?, because I do, and I consider it a serious one at that. What I
> 
> am
> 
>>>referring to is the fundamental issue of whether WG's should be allowed
> 
> to
> 
>>>limit the number of initiatives on any one track to one, and my take is
>>
>>that
>>
>>>the answer here is NO.
>>>
>>>talk about the scope and process of the standards model, but none of
> 
> them
> 
>>>blessings of the WG Chair and those that already own that standing in a
> 
> WG
> 
>>>So look - here is an example, Say I have a protocol for "Whiz-Banging"
> 
> and
> 
>>>there is already a protocol on track inside a WG that Whiz-Bangs but in
> 
> a
> 
>>>"only one" then we need to also have a method for how would anyone
>>
>>introduce
>>
>>>never happen. And it is because it is very very unlikely that the folks
>>
>>with
>>
>>>So then what happens??? The challenging Whiz-Banger is submitted to the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>staff as a disclosure. The I-D staff go to the WG Chair who makes a
>>
>>judgment
>>
>>>gotten investment from them and the others in their WG, so now the WG
>>
>>Chair
>>
>>>takes an active role in suppressing the challenging effort. But say the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>issues get past the WG Chair, so then perhaps with the current model the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>competes with an already in-process or existing standard or
>>
>>standards-track
>>
>>>participant. So this is yet another hurdle to publication and an issue.
> 
> So
> 
>>>So the question simply is where does this end?  Just how does the IETF
>>
>>allow
>>
>>>for a competitive effort, since anything else seems to have serious
> 
> legal
> 
>>>>On zondag, jul 20, 2003, at 19:28 Europe/Amsterdam, Melinda Shore
> 
> wrote:
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:35:07 +0200

We discussed this some months ago under the subject 'avoiding
late surprises.' The conclusion was that the major process bug here
is that early drafts are not reviewed for IETF-wide issues.
Of course nobody can rationally expect the IESG to take on the
extra work of reviewing early drafts.

Hence draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-01.txt, whose discussion
belongs on [email-masked]

   Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:17:20 -0700

James - with inconsistency - how is it possible that ANYONE gets the same
treatment or gets their standard processed under the same mechanisms? and
the answer is that they cant. So then the IETF is not a Uniform Standards
Practice but rather an adversarial one for some and a greased-skid for
others.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF's problems