Peter,
I don't think I would agree that NECP is out of scope for IETF.
I think it's pefectly valid for IETF to say things like "NECP
is intended to support interception proxies. Such proxies
violate the IP architecture in the following ways: ... and
therefore cause the following problems... the only acceptable
things for an interception proxy to do within the current
architecture are those things which are already allowed by the
IP layer (route packets without change to their intended
destination, delay packets, duplicate packets, or drop them)
and the use (if at all) of devices that do more than this should
be limited to the following situations..." But it's difficult to
say things like this if you start with a document that assumes
that interception proxies are fundamentally a good thing.
IETF tries to make the Internet work well. If you propose something
that fundamentally violates the design of the Internet Protocol,
and which harms the ability of Internet applications to work well,
is that really something that the IETF should take on? Granted
that the Internet can and should evolve over time, but proposals that
fundamentally change the architecture need to be examined from a
big-picture point of view and not in a piecemeal fashion.
Note, I am *not* suggesting Cisco has abandoned the IETF. Heck, such a
decision would be so way out of my pay grade (and not the way I see this
company working at all). I'm just suggesting that at least some
individuals I know (and not just at Cisco) are starting to feel that the
IETF is less relevant to their needs than it used to be.
then perhaps they misunderstand the IETF. IETF doesn't exist to
meet the needs of cisco or any other single group. IETF exists
to help the Internet work well for the benefit of all Internet users.
When vendors produce products that harm the ability of the Internet
to work well, they're quite naturally putting themselves in conflict
with the IETF. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
Keith