Re: SDO vs academic conference, was poster sessions

Speaking personally, with none of my official hats on, I would offer the IETF 
is *only* an SDO.

There are no sponsoring organizations, because the IETF is a collection of 
individuals.  No sponsor needed.  For that matter, some individuals consider 
some sponsors toxic, so sometimes having a sponsor is a negative.

When one mentions 'finding a problem and proposing a solution,' if the problem 
is with an Internet protocol or an Internet protocol can solve the problem, 
then the IETF is the place to take the work.  However, if the problem is with 
Internet operations, then a place like the INET (ISOC-sponsored) or 
NANOG/APNOG/AfNOG/EOF would be a better place to go.  If the problem is about 
domain administration or governance, then ICANN is where to go.  If the 
question is about governance, then your local ISOC chapter or IGF would be a 
better place to go.

Parochially and from a purely self-serving perspective, I would offer the 
Internet Society has *a* I* organizational coordination role.  However, before 
the flames start from long-time I* participants, I would also offer that 
Internet governance is BY DEFINITION distributed and ANY organization that 
claims to be to be the center of the Internet universe/governance/technology is 
both delusional and probably does not have the support of ALL constituents 
(users, manufacturers, operators, and governments).  I would offer the IETF has 
near universal support for producing protocols from the global constituency, 
and near no support for anything else.

On another one of your questions, I would offer that for better or worse, the 
IETF ignores the question "who is the consumer of IETF work product" at a 
formal level.  The IETF does not produce protocols for governments.  The IETF 
does not produce protocols for operators.  The IETF does not produce protocols 
for vendors.  Rather, as a collection of volunteer individuals, the IETF 
produces protocols the individuals are WILLING to produce.  This is 
microeconomics at its best.  For people to volunteer literally millions of 
dollars worth of engineering time per year to the IETF, the IETF has to be 
relevant.  However, rather than being relevant because some government says it 
is relevant or being relevant because an industry consortium says it is 
relevant, the IETF is relevant because it has a history of producing relevant 
work.  Because of that history, people (individuals!) bring important, relevant 
work to the IETF.  Presuming other INDIVIDUALS see that work as being 
important, it gets worked on.

The fastest way to find out if ones work is relevant to the Internet *protocol* 
community, and note this is NOT necessarily the Internet community at large, is 
to bring it to the IETF.  If it is relevant work, it gets worked on.  You do 
not have to be from a member state, a member vendor, a member operator, a 
member institution.  You just need an email address.

FInally, one of my personal goals is to keep reminding folks that the IETF does 
engineering, NOT research.  If one has an idea that is not fully baked, the 
IRTF is a great place to bring the idea to where one can get the benefits of 
experienced IETF people without the drawbacks of an SDO.


On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:24 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> On 10/Jan/11 23:38, Fred Baker wrote:
> > Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic
> > conference in which grad students are advertising for a professor
> > that might be interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund
> > their research. This is an SDO, and internet drafts are what any
> > other SDO calls "contributions" or "work in progress". I would far
> > rather have people who ant to talk about something contribute an
> > internet draft on their topic, and talk with other people about
> > their ideas - whether on working group lists or other places. For
> > those of us that *do* participate, it seems to mostly work.
> OTOH, for those of us who don't participate, it doesn't :-)
>
> My ignorance of IETF's inner functioning is so deep that I cannot even
> tell what is the equivalent of a mentoring professor or a sponsoring
> organization within the IETF, let alone finding one.  As an Internet
> user, I may have a problem, hypothesize possible causes, and wait for
> solutions to be proposed or formulate a tentative solution myself.
> The question is, is the IETF the natural referent of such occurrences?
> Does the "I" in its name promote it as the universal coordinator for
> Internet related issues?
>
> I think a negative answer would affirm the view of the IETF as an SDO
> only.  This would rise further questions such as who are its customers
> --possibly the IGF or similar assemblies-- and what kind of mechanisms
> do they use to order what has to be standardized and how.
>
> A positive answer would imply the IETF is something more than an SDO.
> Possibly the embryo of a technocracy.  That would call for more
> dendritic links to the Internet at large.  For example, someone
> proposed to add more entries and comments to the IETF's Outcomes Wiki.
> By symmetry, some means to campaign for input topics may also be
> desirable --not necessarily poster sessions, just something that may
> motivate outsiders to join the meetings.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf