Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we
think are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year.
Similarly, we can request that IANA not register things we
think are damaging, or at least to label them as potentially
We can publish screeds about damaging practices. The IAB does
this a few times a year.
We can try to develop non-damaging solutions for requirements
where the easy solutions are damaging, and we can try to
repair our own damage (as HTTP 1.1 repairs HTTP 1.0).
We can try to ensure that the Internet can 'route around
damage' - that's one of the main reasons for defending the
e2e principle, for example.
But we can't prevent people from deploying solutions that we
didn't develop, and we shouldn't even try to IMHO.
Mao was wrong, the root of power is not coercion, it is persuasion.
Sure the IETF can pursuade IANA not to register a code point. But if
that happens it only makes things worse. There is nothing that can be
done to prevent unregistered use and no real disadvantage to doing so as
nobody will want to accept an official registration polluted by prior
I do not see an argument being made that BitTorrent is worse than the
alternatives that can be used. Instead there is a NIH argument that
BitTorrent is in competition with multicast.
I think it is important to distinguish net.stewardship from special
pleading trying to use the vast political influence of the IETF as
described by Brian to force consumers to adopt the anointed solution
over the deployed.
Ietf mailing list