Subject: Missing root cause: Internet has gotten more complex

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:15:49 -0400

Looking at the root causes, they appear to be:

>    2.    Root Cause Problems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>    2.1   Participants in the IETF do not have a Common
>          Understanding of its Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>    2.2   The IETF does not Consistently use Effective Engineering
>          Practices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    2.3   The IETF has Difficulty Handling Large and/or Complex
>          Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
>    2.4   Three Stage Standards Hierarchy not properly Utilized  . . . 13
>    2.5   The IETF's Workload Exceeds the Number of Fully Engaged
>          Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
>    2.6   The IETF Management Structure is not Matched to the
>          Current Size and Complexity of the IETF  . . . . . . . . . . 15
>    2.7   Working Group Practices can make Issue Closure Difficult . . 20
>    2.8   IETF Participants and Leaders are Inadequately Prepared
>          for their Roles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

But there is at least one root cause that I don't see called out
explicitly:

     The Internet Has Become More Complex and Requirements placed on
     it by Users have Changed

Examples:

- increasing complexity of internet/protocols/deployments

- awareness that when deployed, protocols _will_ interact with each
  other and there is a need to understand those interactions in order
  to decide whether the protocol is reasonably well thought out and
  that there will be no maor (bad) surpises when it becomes deployed.

- desire to not have multiple protocols that do essentially the same
  thing, thus, need to use other IETF components rather than point
  solution. (but this view may not be shared by all of the community,
  which gets back to Section 2.1)

- The Internet has changed over the last 15 years, with a different
  level of expectations (e.g., part of economic infrastructure).
  Internet is no longer a toy for running half-thought-out experiments
  on a wide-scale, where the consequences may be very hard to fix
  after the fact. Another way of stating this. Its one thing to run an
  experiment of limited scope. It's another to put something into cell
  phones, where the "experiment" involves millions of devices.

  note: this point may well also go back to lack of agreement on
  mission/core values.

- The "low hanging fruit" has been picked. The easiest problems to
  solve have been solved. We're now dealing with the harder ones; it
  should be no surprise that finding solutions to them is not as easy.

Thomas

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:42:43 -0700

Thomas -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:15 AM
Subject: Missing root cause: Internet has gotten more complex

> - increasing complexity of internet/protocols/deployments

and legal issues  as well. For instance, building a protocol that has no
real purpose but to allow the subversion of a local law in some country is
another problem. Not that we should use this as a metric, but the Napster
protocol is exactly this, and especially with how it was erected. Seeing the
results, at some point some Judge or group of lawyers is going to realize
that the IETF is a real target for vengence for the protocols of the world
that they cant control, and this is the last thing the IETF would need.

>   that there will be no maor (bad) surpises when it becomes deployed.

This has both political and technical inplications...

>   which gets back to Section 2.1)

Which then means that the IETF produces one and only one of each
protocol??? - My take is that doing thins makes the IETF of limited use to
businesses that want to compete with existing protocols. Which brings us to
another problem, and that there is no real way for any new protocol to
challenge and unseat the incumbant protocol if the incumbant protocol doesnt
want it...

>   level of expectations (e.g., part of economic infrastructure).

Amen

>   after the fact.

Good point - so maybe a standard's process based on secret votes is a bit
passed its time as well too, Eh?

> Another way of stating this. Its one thing to run an