ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Internet Creationists -> was RE: Want a BoF at IETF 62?

2004-12-28 20:36:49

 
I was simply expressing support for the charter and a BoF.

-----Original Message-----
From: ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com 
[mailto:ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com] 
I feel that the charter as orignally proposed on September 
23rd was a 
good charter and should be allowed to proceed.

IMO it left far too many aspects of the approach to be taken 
unspecified, so much so that it cannot be used in an 
exclusionary way to arrive at some form of consensus.

It is an adequate charter to define the technical scope of the project.
I agree that there are technical details to be determined as to the
embodiment of the project that could result in differing proposals.

Naysayers should simply
get off the mailing list and form their own group.

Excuse me, but the IETF is all about getting consensus. Not 
excluding dissenting views. Demanding that "naysayers get off 
the list" is so contrary to the IETF process it isn't funny.

Yes, sorry, but I was a little irritable, not about technical debate but
the bickering on the list.  There is far too many self proclaimed
declarations of non-consensus, and general negative noise.  Perhaps I
should have directed this comment more specifically at comment's like
Phil's  "no desire to start ... with the same cast of characters".

Then again ... if work moved to another list, you'd likely have the
noise sources follow.  This is a clear problem with the IETF as a whole,
not just this group.  Seems like as we find ways to solve spam we should
also find better ways to work together in the e-mail format.  But I'm
digressing ... 


Now, in those rare cases where it is clear that there's an 
identifiable central issue of approach that cannot resolved, 
the IETF has on occasion chartered multiple groups to pursue 
each competing approach. However, what I see here is not 
amenable to this trick: We have a bunch of disparate 
positions with no clear way of dividing them up. And besides, 
that's not what you're
proposing: You're proposing that dissenting views simply be 
told to buzz off, not that they actually be simultaneously 
given a place to pursue an alternative.

No.  The charter provides a limited scope for proposals.  It's viable to
have a runoff of competing proposals with the context of the charter.
Anyone who wishes to participate in a productive process should be
welcome to participate.  Anyone has alternative outside the scope of the
charter should start an alternative group of their own.  

Now we just need more proposals ...


We waste way to much bandwidth on irrelevant debate and 
noise making 
and should simply allow the work to move forward.  If people have 
other alternative solutions, they should not hold back progress on 
this clearly chartered work and go pursue their own agendas 
elsewhere.

At the worst we may create another unused protocol ... 
However if not 
started, it will not ever be available as an option.  The IETF is a 
darwinian process, we should allow the ideas to be formalized and 
documented and then leave it to the market forces to 
determine adoption.

The Darwinian approach is in fact rarely used in the IETF, 
and when it is used it is done in a way that is quite 
different from what you are advocating. I will also point out 
that its use tends to generate loads of ill-will that can 
easily damage the prospects of any result. (Any of the many 
debates on IPv6 deployment that have occured on the main IETF 
list illustrate this point
nicely.)

So, you must be a packet creationist:

        The Creation of the Internet

        1:1 In the beginning IAB created the network and the protocols.

        1:2 Now the network was without shape and empty, and darkness 
           was over the surface of the wired deep, but the Spirit 
           of the IAB was moving over the surface of the wires.
        1:3 IAB said, "Let there be an RFC." And there was packets! 
        1:4 IAB saw that the packets were good, so IAB separated the
packets. 


I personally believe that TCP/IP had ancestors that may have included
IMPs.

Paul


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>