Subject: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:48:10 +0200

Greetings,

As part of the discussions about change process within
the IETF, the IESG has come to believe that a somewhat longer statement of 
the IETF's mission and social dynamics might provide useful context for the 
community's discussion.  As part of that, we'd like to put the following 
document out for feedback.

It incorporates lots of ideas and some text from existing RFCs
and IETF web pages, but is more focused on change than those have
been.  We hope it captures a sense of the context of the work of
improving the IETF, by capturing some of the social dynamics which
have been an implicit part of the IETF's work and style over the years.

We also hope that by making some of those implicit elements more
explicit, we may find it easier to understand how to make changes
that will "go with the grain" of the IETF's history and culture.

We'd be happy to have feedback on it, either sent to the IETF list
for public discussion or to the IESG.  This is an informal piece of work, 
and may never be published in RFC form, but may rather appear on the IETF 
web pages somewhere.

Your comments are welcome!

		Harald Alvestrand
		For the IESG

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:37:46 -0300

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
    Harald> sort out which standards were actually needed.  As the field has
    Harald> grown explosively, specialization has set in, and market pressures
    Harald> have risen, there has been less and less operator participation in
    Harald> the IETF.

  I'm unclear if this documents thinks this is a good thing or a bad thing.
  I think that it is a bad thing.

] Collecting stories about my dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/cjr/ |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:35:24 +0200

It is a bad thing.
But we saw in Vienna that the exodus is far from complete yet. So it could 
be worse....

--On 14. oktober 2003 21:37 -0300 Michael Richardson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     Harald> sort out which standards were actually needed.  As the field
> has     Harald> grown explosively, specialization has set in, and market
> pressures     Harald> have risen, there has been less and less operator
> participation in     Harald> the IETF.
>
>   I'm unclear if this documents thinks this is a good thing or a bad
> thing.   I think that it is a bad thing.
>
> ] Collecting stories about my dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/cjr/ |
> firewalls  [ ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON
> |net architect[ ] [email-masked]
> http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another
> NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [
>
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:06:49 -0400

It's an interesting document, but it looks to me a bit much
like a problem description and I'm not sure how it relates
to other existing work (the problem description document in
the problem working group, most obviously).  I particularly
liked the discussion of the IETF mission - it could provide
the basis for tackling one problem that's been raised on
a number of occasions, which is that the organization doesn't
have a clear sense of mission or vision.  Even though in the
first paragraph of the "Social Dynamics" section you say that
"As they are neither good nor bad, it is not appropriate to
call them "problems;" rather think of them as social forces
and dynamics" a number of them really are framed as problems.
Indeed, it would be hard to define some way in which statements like
"making integration more difficult" are not problem statements.

I'd really like to see the document, which I think has good
fundamentals, refocused on mission and goals.

Melinda

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:04:45 -0400

> have been an implicit part of the IETF's work and style over the years.

OK, but first, it doesn't clarify the mission, or the social contract.
At most it makes a couple vague statements after describing some general
problems.  It looks like the IESG has some sense of where the
problem-statement/solutions process is going, and wants to run with it.
That's okay -- but please say explicitly that's what's happening, if it
is.

> that will "go with the grain" of the IETF's history and culture.

What I want is a renewed, clear statement of the fundamental principles
of the IETF which must not be violated or weakened during the
problem/solution process.  It's important that the leadership of the
IETF keep clear themselves on what the fundamental principles are, and
to reiterate them when necessary (like now).  That's part of the social
contract itself.  There are principles which are at the heart of the
organization and which the (pseudo-)consensus process doesn't get to
touch.

> The IETF Mission
> ----------------
> 
> The IETF's mission has historically been embedded in a shared
> understanding that making engineering choices based on the long
> term interest of the Internet as a whole produces better long-term
> results for each participant than making choices based on short term
> considerations, because the value of those advantages is ultimately
> derived from the health of the whole.  The long term interest of the
> Internet includes the premise that "the Internet is for everyone".
> 
> Two years ago, the IESG felt that making the mission of the IETF
> more explicit was needed.  The following terse statement has since
> been promulgated, first by IESG members and then by others:
> 
>    "The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant,
>     and timely standards for the Internet."

The purpose of the IETF has always been to make the Internet work
better, in measurable operational terms.  All else descends from that.
We do standards because we have to, for now and for the future.  Why do
we care about network operators being in the room if our prime mission
is to make standards?  Why do we care if there are two interoperable
implementations?  The operations work of the IETF is important unless it
is being taken care of elsewhere.  It isn't frosting on a standards body
cake, it's just as important as standards.  

Beyond that, yes, the IETF is primarily an SDO, because many operational
issues and agreement on deployment BCPs are being taken care of by other
means, and also because standards is our main measurable output in the
eyes of the outside world.  The above statement applies, but it is not a
basic principle.  It derives from our fundamental responsibility, to
have an Internet that works well today and is robust and flexible enough
to work well in the future.

> It is important that this is "For the Internet,"  and does not include 
> everything that happens to use IP.  IP is being used in a myriad of 
> real-world applications, such as controlling street lights, but the 
> IETF does not standardize those applications.

A very poor distinction.  Everything runs on the Internet eventually,
regardless of what private area it was meant for to start with.
Experience is that everyone wins if there are Internet-compatible ways
of doing things from the beginning.  I fully expect street light control
to run as a secure service along with many other services over a generic
IP network.  However, it's okay to say that priority will be given to
work on the public Internet.

> The IETF has also had a strong operational component, with a tight
> bond, and hence coordination, between protocol developers and
> network operators, and has had many participants who did both.
> This has provided valuable feedback to allow correction of
> misguided standardization efforts, and has provided feedback to
> sort out which standards were actually needed.  As the field has
> grown explosively, specialization has set in, and market pressures
> have risen, there has been less and less operator participation in
> the IETF.

This has nothing to do with either mission or social contract.  Are you
saying "therefore we need to change our mission"?

Similarly for almost all of the rest.  What's the point?  Are you
reiterating the problem-statement work?  They're doing all right,
although perhaps you could help push the work to completion.  It would
be much more useful for you to reaffirm the fundamental principles that
are not on the auction block.

Have a good time at the meeting, I won't make it this time.

See you ... Scott

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:48:37 -0400

overall, I like the document.  some comments:

> However, while Dave Clark's famous saying
> 
>   "We do not believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
>    We believe only in rough consensus and running code,"

is this an accurate quote?  I've usually seen it written

	We reject kings, presidents, and voting. 
	We believe in rough consensus and running code.

I agree with this form, but not with the way you've stated it.
I certainly don't believe "only" in rough consensus and running code -
I also believe in explicit definition of goals and requirements,
careful design by knowledgable experts, analysis, iterative
specification, wide public review, etc.

>     and timely standards for the Internet."

I actually believe IETF has a somewhat wider purpose than that.  What
I usually say is "we're trying to help the Internet work better".
We do this partially by authoring and maintaining protocol standards, 
but we use other mechanisms also.  In addition to standards, we produce 
informational and experimental documents and BCPs.   We provide formal 
and informal advice and feedback to various parties about operational
practices,  implementation practices, efforts by other SDOs, proposed
regulations, etc.  All of these are relevant to, and consistent with,
the purpose of helping the Internet to work better.

We *ought* to provide more architectural direction or advice - our
failure to resolve architectural issues in advance of deployment of
products with conflicting views of the architecture (or in some 
cases, a simple lack of care or foresight on those vendors' parts) has
caused a number of conflicts and operational problems, and has impaired
the ability of the Internet to support diverse applications.

I also believe that some amount of experimentation (perhaps not all
that is being done under IETF's purview) is part of the process of
"trying to make the Internet work better"

> The IETF
> has identified interoperability, security, and scalability as
> essential, but without attaching measurements to those
> characteristics.

that's a start.  there are a lot more characteristics than these that
should be considered in a design, that we haven't articulated yet,
but we need to.

> IETF does not standardize those applications.

I disagree with the sentiment as I understand it.  I don't think it's
realistic anymore to take the view that what people run entirely on 
private networks is their own business and outside of IETF's purview. 
NATs, private addresses, and DHCP with short lease times have all had
devistating effects on the Internet's ability to support applications. 
Insecure applications can facilitate the breeding of viruses that affect
the entire network even if their intended interactions are only between
a local client and server.

We do have to limit our scope.  We don't have the ability to scale to
the point where we could standardize everything that uses IP, and it
would be silly of us to try to claim authority to do so.  But it might
be reasonable for us to define standards for how local networks work
(to provide applications with a predictable environment), or to define
standards which all applications should adhere to (to minimize security
issues) which can be incorporated by reference into other protocol
specifications.

regarding the section on "Quality and Architectural Review".  what strikes
me about this section is the (implicit) assumption that architecture is
done after the fact.  rather than looking ahead to minimize and resolve
conflicts well before they acquire the inertia of wide deployment, we 
try to fix things after the fact.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:57:11 -0400

> "The purpose of  the IETF is to create high  quality, relevant, and timely
> standards for the Internet." 

> IETF does not standardize those applications. 

Well, let's test this assertion.  Suppose a consortium of electric companies
develops a UDP-based protocol  for monitoring and controlling street lights.
It turns  out that  this protocol generates  an unbounded amount  of traffic
(say,  proportional to  the square  of the  number of  street lights  in the
world), has no  congestion control, and no security, but  is expected to run
over the Internet. 

According to you, this has nothing to  do with the IETF.  It might result in
the congestive collapse of the Internet,  but who cares, the IETF doesn't do
street  lights.  I would  like  to see  the  criteria  which determine  that
telephones belong on the Internet but street lights don't!

Another problem  with your  formulation is that  the Internet is  a growing,
changing, entity,  so "for the Internet"  often means "for what  I think the
Internet  should  be  in  a  few  years", and  this  is  then  a  completely
unobjective criterion.  One  would hope instead that the  IETF would want to
encourage competition between different  views of Internet evolution, as the
competition of ideas is the way to make progress. 

I also do not understand whether "for the Internet" means something different
than "for IP networking" or not.  

I think  it should  also be part  of the  mission to produce  standards that
facilitate the migration to IP  of applications and infrastructures that use
legacy networking  technologies.  Such  migration seems to  be good  for the
Internet, but I don't know if it is "for the Internet" or not.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:24 -0400

> One  would hope instead that the  IETF would want to

what I would say instead is that the IETF should encourage this competition 
within the sphere of architectural discussion - well in advance of development
of specific standards or deployment of specific products.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:04:32 +0200

Eric,

--On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Well, let's test this assertion.  Suppose a consortium of electric
> companies develops a UDP-based protocol  for monitoring and controlling
> street lights. It turns  out that  this protocol generates  an unbounded
> amount  of traffic (say,  proportional to  the square  of the  number of
> street lights  in the world), has no  congestion control, and no
> security, but  is expected to run over the Internet.
>
> According to you, this has nothing to  do with the IETF.  It might result
> in the congestive collapse of the Internet,  but who cares, the IETF
> doesn't do street  lights.  I would  like  to see  the  criteria  which
> determine  that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights don't!

thanks for making the most concise statement of the conflict here in the 
discussion so far!
I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking 
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about 
it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the issue 
forever, with nothing but wasted energy to show for it.

In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3 different 
other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:

- "Everything that runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF 
standardization". Obviously, that might cause some reactions from 
organizations like the W3C, OMG, ISO, ITU, the power grid standardizers, 
the bank transaction standardizers and others.... even if the IETF were 
able to gather the required competence, it's hard to see how we could build 
a management structure that could handle "everything".

- "Everything that needs open, documented interoperability and runs over 
the Internet is appropriate for IETF standardization". A bit smaller, but 
still huge, and hard to draw boundaries around. Advantage: Everything we 
currently work on is unquestionably part of the IETF's scope.

- "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that needs to be 
open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF standardization". This would 
place SMTP, DNS and LDAP (in the original vision) inside the IETF's sphere, 
but would leave the traffic lights (and the current way LDAP is used) 
outside it.

- "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is appropriate for 
IETF standardization". Argues for keeping HTTP and DNS, would include your 
hypothetical traffic lights, but would probably leave POP/IMAP out, and 
leaves people arguing about both SIP and L3VPN.

- "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in making 
the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.

It's far from clear in my mind what the right thing is, or what the 
appropriate path forward is if the IETF regards its purpose as being one or 
the other - we might, for instance, decide that we standardize stuff that 
needs to be open and interoperable, but have different evaluation criteria 
for those things than for those things that "make the Internet work", and 
will dispose our resources accordingly - I don't know. And if we decide 
that certain things we currently do are outside our scope, we've got a 
responsibility to make sure the work effort is handled in a responsible 
fashion.

But it's relatively clear to my mind that continuing to have both sides of 
a discussion argue based on "the mission of the IETF", with conflicting 
definitions, is not the best thing for the Internet.

So - rather than stating something completely vague, we put out a proposal. 
If it's the wrong proposal, it should be changed. But please be specific 
about what you think it should be changed to.

makes sense?

                  Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:25:49 +0200

(Only to problem-statement. I assume the interested parties are mainly here.)

Firstly a general point. I am rather amazed that this draft comes
from the IESG alone, and not from the IAB+IESG. In fact, I'd like
an explanation. Since the IAB and the IESG are the two peer committees
that the IETF puts in place to oversee the architecture and oversee
the process, I simply don't buy the idea of a draft mission statement
that comes from only one of them.

Secondly, I agree with Melinda: take out the "problem" language. This
document should contain exclusively positive statements.

Thirdly:

Keith Moore wrote:

(and other people wrote similar things)

...
> a local client and server.

Furthermore, we have *explicitly* in the past given warnings about the
risk to users' interests of walled garden approaches. And RFC 3002 made
a specific recommendation as a result (please read the whole RFC for
context):

 4.2.1

   It was strongly recommended that independent of the ubiquity of the
   "walled garden" deployment scenario that protocols and architectural
   decisions should not target this model.  To continue the success of
   Internet protocols at operating across a highly diverse and
   heterogeneous environment the IETF must continue to foster the
   adoption of an "open model".  IETF protocol design must address
   seamless, secure, and scalable access.

I would like to see the mission statement endorsing this. Of course the
IETF will not standardize all *applications* but if we don't standardize
the IP environment, including at least transport and transport security,
and whatever is needed in the way of a session level, regardless of whether 
it is part of the big-I Internet, we will be doing our ultimate customers 
(ordinary users) an important disservice.

What we also need in the mission statement is enough boundary-setting that
we can relatively easily decide what fits into the "Applications" Area
and whether the Sub-IP Area belonged here in the first place. (I put
"Applications" in quotes because there isn't much in the Apps area that
outsiders think of as applications.)

   Brian

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:15:02 -0400

> the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope. 

In other words, routing,  DNS, and Internet operations/management.  Adopting
this as  the IETF's mission  would be a  very radical change  indeed!  While
this particular  mission statement does seem  to reflect the  interests of a
certain notorious IESG member, let's not pretend that this has ever been the
limit of the IETF's mission.  The IETF has always been concerned with things
that make the Internet more useful,  and with things that expand the utility
of the IP protocol suite.  There's never been a time when "for the Internet"
was an accurate representation of the IETF's concerns.

You are  of course welcome  to propose such  a radical change to  the IETF's
mission.  But  if you are  going to circulate  a document under  the subject
line "IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission", you should make it clear
that the  IESG is proposing to make  a complete change in  the IETF mission.
Instead,  you  give  the impression  that  the  IESG  thinks that  "for  the
Internet" is and has always been the IETF's mission. 

The  formulation   I  like  is  "Everything  that   needs  open,  documented
interoperability  and  runs  over  the  Internet  is  appropriate  for  IETF
standardization".  This is  much truer to the IETF's  current and historical
practice.  

That doesn't  necessarily mean that  the IETF has to  standardize everything
that falls within  its mission.  For instance, a  particular area might fall
within the mission, but the IETF  might not have the expertise to tackle it.
A WG  in that area  could then be  rejected on the grounds  of "insufficient
expertise".  Such decisions  would have to be made  on a case-by-case basis.
Again, this is the way such decisions have always been made in the IETF.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:41:35 -0700 (PDT)

% --On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
% 
% > Well, let's test this assertion.  Suppose a consortium of electric
% > companies develops a UDP-based protocol  for monitoring and controlling
% > street lights. It turns  out that  this protocol generates  an unbounded
% > amount  of traffic (say,  proportional to  the square  of the  number of
% > street lights  in the world), has no  congestion control, and no
% > security, but  is expected to run over the Internet.
% >
% > According to you, this has nothing to  do with the IETF.  It might result
% > in the congestive collapse of the Internet,  but who cares, the IETF
% > doesn't do street  lights.  I would  like  to see  the  criteria  which
% > determine  that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights don't!
% 
% thanks for making the most concise statement of the conflict here in the 
% discussion so far!
% I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking 
% about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about 
% it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the issue 
% forever, with nothing but wasted energy to show for it.
% 
% In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3 different 
% other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:
% 
% - "Everything that runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF 
% 
% - "Everything that needs open, documented interoperability and runs over 
% the Internet is appropriate for IETF 
% 
% - "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that needs to be 
% open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF standardization". 
% 
% - "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is appropriate for 
% IETF standardization". 

% - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in making 
% the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
% 
% a discussion argue based on "the mission of the IETF", with conflicting 
% definitions, is not the best thing for the Internet.
% 
%                   Harald

	I guess for me, I always thought that the IETF and its
	precursors were interested in developing engineering 
	solutions / designing protocols that would allow "end2end or
	any2any" communications, regardless of underlying transport
	media, be it seismic wave, avian carrier, radio waves or
	the PSTN.  - At no time did I ever truly beleive that 
	the systems that used these protocols/solutions would always
	be on and fully connected.  Infrastructures that use IETF
	products have nearly always been only partially connected
	and many systems are not always on.
	
	So while a design goal might have been to support always 
	on/fully connected state, the reality is that infrastructres
	have nearly always been disjoint/unconnected and endpoints
	come and go.  But when they are connectable, they should 
	function in a seamless, e2e fashion, at least IMHO.

	And then you neglect an unstated presumption in the last 
	two bullet points:  As perceived by who?  

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Simon Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:30:10 -0400

>> IETF does not standardize those applications.

Yes, and towards a possibly more contentious application, see Voice 
over IP. Lots of VoIP work is being done without involving the internet 
at all. Used by telecoms for telecoms applications, where "best effort" 
isn't good enough because it needs to keep working when the power goes 
out. IP, yes, Internet, no.

Against that you have "voice over internet" which is AKA "voice chat" 
and already abounds in true internet p2p apps like iChat, GnomeMeeting, 
and some programs on that other OS. These run on the public internet 
and benefit from the IETF design paradigms like edge-to-edge (aka 
end2end) and best effort but also have to accept the relevant drawbacks.

simon

> companies

--
www.simonwoodside.com :: www.openict.net :: www.semacode.org
                     99% Devil, 1% Angel

---

From: masataka ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:42:58 +0900

Simon Woodside;

> Yes, and towards a possibly more contentious application, see Voice over 
> IP. Lots of VoIP work is being done without involving the internet at 
> all. Used by telecoms for telecoms applications, where "best effort" 

Why, do you think, the Internet may stop working when the power
goes out?

It should not, which is required to certain ISPs by regulation at
least in Japan.

> and some programs on that other OS. These run on the public internet and 
> benefit from the IETF design paradigms like edge-to-edge (aka end2end) 
> and best effort but also have to accept the relevant drawbacks.

"voice chat"? Are you assuming PCs?

POTS telephone devices and terminal adaptors is the natural way
of "voice over the Internet".

Note that end to end architecture means ultimate availability of
fate sharing.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

According to the end to end principle, end user equipments should
have their own power backup, of course, which is also the case with
ISDN TA or cellular phone devices. Then, with multihoming, your
connection is a lot more robust than that of a single telephone
company.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:18:41 +0100

since both you and Scott pointed out this one....

> I usually say is "we're trying to help the Internet work better".

my personal belief is that the purpose of the *Internet technical 
community* is to make the Internet work better. But we have to admit to 
division of labor, and the part that we call the IETF needs to concentrate 
on standards, and the "supporting functions" of fora for experimentation 
and gathering of operational experience.

Others do the work of pulling fiber, designing routers, arresting spammers 
and detecting virii. We, gathered as the IETF, should not (IMHO) attempt to 
take over those functions. Despite the fact that it's what many of us do 
when we're not doing IETF stuff!

                Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:27:14 +0100

--On 16. oktober 2003 13:15 -0400 Eric Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in
>> making  the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
>
> In other words, routing,  DNS, and Internet operations/management.
> Adopting this as  the IETF's mission  would be a  very radical change
> indeed!

I erred in describing that category. I should have used something else - it 
was not what the IESG thought it was saying in its proposed mission 
statement, so me recycling the term "for the Internet" in the bulleted list 
I made added confusion rather than clarifying. Sorry!

(I still think it's a valid point on the scale. It leaves us with a much 
smaller IETF. But some people tend to think that's a positive side.)

                   Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:44:16 -0700

> that comes from only one of them.

Put this down as bad management (ie my fault). The IESG was anxious to get 
this draft in front of the community, so we shipped it publicly just about 
the moment it had a form that the IESG could stand behind.
Nowhere was there an intention of not getting IAB comment and buy-in.

> document should contain exclusively positive statements.

Point.

> and whatever is needed in the way of a session level, regardless of
> whether  it is part of the big-I Internet, we will be doing our ultimate
> customers  (ordinary users) an important disservice.

That's a discussion we need to have. I think of the walled garden as being 
"off the Internet", and "open model" applications as being "on the 
Internet", and thus within reach of the proper focus of the IETF.
If what we do works inside walled gardens too - nice, but not something I 
think we should value excessively.

> outsiders think of as applications.)

Yes. Suggested text?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:41:08 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
    Harald> In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3
    Harald> different other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:

  okay, I very much like these descriptions.

    Harald> - "Everything that runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF
    Harald> standardization". 

    Harald> - "Everything that needs open, documented interoperability and
    Harald> runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF
    Harald> standardization". 

    Harald> - "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that
    Harald> needs to be open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF
    Harald> standardization". 

  These are three levels that I understand, and each seems to enclose
the next.

    Harald> - "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is
    Harald> appropriate for IETF standardization". 

  This is very much more nebulous, because "seriously impact" is a question
of very open judgement.

] Collecting stories about my dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/cjr/ |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:13:20 +0100

...
> > outsiders think of as applications.)

(long pause due to day job)

The IETF covers a wide range of technical areas and it is impossible to set fully
objective boundaries that allow an algorithmic answer to the question whether a
particular item is within the IETF's technical scope. However, it can be stated
that IETF work items are always concerned with either the Internet Protocol layer
itself (Layer 3 in the ISO/OSI Reference Model), with its management and routing,
with transport protocols (Layer 4) that may seriously impact the correct functioning
of the IP layer, or with direct uses of the transport layer that provide generic
services. Security mechanisms for all of the above are also in scope.

Transmission technologies below Layer 3, and upper layer protocols that are not
generic in nature, are generally out of scope. Also, tightly integrated suites of
generic upper layer protocols (for example, the Web Services protocols) may be more
appropriately specified by a dedicated standards body.

Hmm. Not perfect, but it's a start. Which list should we discuss this on?

    Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:08:35 -0500

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 04:13:20PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> The IETF covers a wide range of technical areas and it is impossible
> to set fully objective boundaries that allow an algorithmic answer to
> the question whether a particular item is within the IETF's technical
> scope. However, it can be stated that IETF work items are always
> concerned with either the Internet Protocol layer itself (Layer 3 in
> the ISO/OSI Reference Model), with its management and routing, with
> transport protocols (Layer 4) that may seriously impact the correct
> functioning of the IP layer, or with direct uses of the transport
> layer that provide generic services. Security mechanisms for all of
> the above are also in scope.
> 
> Transmission technologies below Layer 3, and upper layer protocols
> that are not generic in nature, are generally out of scope. Also,
> tightly integrated suites of generic upper layer protocols (for
> example, the Web Services protocols) may be more appropriately
> specified by a dedicated standards body.

Corollary: Anything that has to run everywhere IP runs.  This pulls in
protocols which need to establish state at every IP hop, not just
waypoints (e.g. application proxies).  The one that's on my mind is
MPLS.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:03:10 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

> > the above are also in scope.

As are the critical audit and timestamping (the evidentiary processes) that
document the functioning of the system. Generally these have been mashed
into the "Security Stuff" listing but in many instances they should and are
stand-alone feature-sets and technologies so...