Todd,
If you want anything done, you learn how things are done in the first place.
When I participate in ISO/IEC meetings, I follows the principle of ISO/IEC.
Standard progress are rigid but it does get things done systemically. And
when I participate in IETF, I follows the principle of IETF - rough
consensus and running codes.
Each organisation will do what it always do. I dont expect ISO/IEC to be
like IETF nor the reverse.
No one is denying the existence of commerical interest, and many of us here
have vary degree of that. But if IETF wish to consider that as a factor, it
always could - thru rough consensus. If the rough consensus conclude that
commerical interest is an important factor for that work/protocol, then it
is. If not, then not.
Your failure to convience the rest that your commerical interest is of
importance to the rest of the Internet is not a failure of the IETF. It is
your failure to gather rough consensus.
IETF has never been a rubber stamping authority for commerical interest -- I
hope it never will be. But if that is your goal for having a revolution,
then I suggest you try to find some other organisation to do that for you.
In fact, there are many organisation out there willingly eager to do so.
ps: "Level playing ground" seem to be a favourite phrase of yours. Note that
"level playing ground" is actually a by-product of having open standard, not
the goal.
-James Seng
Actually James you have to a big extent hit the cause of the problem on
the
head. The IETF is still predominantly Engineering Staffers and the
Internet
has evolved to a point where it now needs Commercial input too. The lack
of
commercial input into the IETF is clearly a statement of the IETF's
concern
about being told what it can and can't develop... and to date the IETF has
long survived by saying "We know better, we are the technical gurus". But
this is inaccurate and a smokescreen these
days.
My example of the IETF's warranting commercial involvement is a simple
statement in that there are essentially two types of protocols that are
being
developed in this forum these days that are outside the realm of new
developments like Wireless and new physical backbone protocols. The first
protocol types are additions and evolutions to existing routing and
service
protocols, and for these efforts the current status and form of the IETF
is
still adequate although it lacks documentation to validate their actions.
Still, it's probably OK for the existing IETF to manage these.
The other side of the coin is different though. These are End-User
Protocols
and now more than ever these need to be governed or certified by
commercial
acceptance... before they get to the point of being a proposed standard.
The problem as I see it is that the Engineer (or child) in us is
frightened
by this, since traditionally the commercial folks (the adults) have driven
home that no matter how cool our inventions (or toys) are, there may in
fact be no commercial use for them... and they, in the interest of
Business,
killed them (our toys) as such. What that meant is that the solutions we
had created were either too difficult to implement or not cost effective
relative to what they produced as a commercial service set ...
In other words, those efforts failed to meet the essential real world
practicality
standard. So in response to having our hands slapped, we as inventors and
engineers have shied away from a world where we would be called upon to
justify what we are up to. In other words, be held to the same
accountability standards that any other organizations (public or private)
are held to. We also see there is a way by creating these standards that
we
can have power in the mortal's world as well. And acceptance as really
"special" geeks. That's why a lot of the IETF is operating the way it is
now. Or at least that's my take on it.
To further this a bit, I also want to say we are at a point I think, where
this does not fly anymore. It's too complex to keep the boilerplate out
of
the way; & the impact is much greater now. Because of these factors
it is time the IETF and IESG woke up and smelled the coffee as well as
to not only acknowledge but function with these realities in mind.
The bottom line is that it's time for the ISOC family of
organizations to become culpable for their actions and to put in place a
level playing field for all.
----
The current problem the world faces is that an Internet Standard is
potentially worth billions of dollars. (see local exchange rates for
details
on the
value in your own currency) and this now is a serious issue. It taints
everything
that the IETF does and participates in.
And so in closing this rant I think its time to acknowledge that we need
to
evolve a more formal and more user-participatory method of managing the
ISOC
organizations. If the bodies are not there, then we need to recognize
that it's because we have failed in making this something that the average
participant could understand and work with, and that's our shortcoming,
not
the rest of the world's.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "james woodyatt" <jhw(_at_)wetware(_dot_)com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Cc: "todd glassey" <todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[...] I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic. [...]
This is a matter of politics, philosophy and economics (PPE). Asking
engineers to comment on such things is nice-- we're so often left out of
such discussions.
Here's what I think: asking this question is like asking, "how many
units of currency and instruments of payment does the world need?" The
answer depends on your theories of PPE.
If I could measure the "sovereignty" of the IETF as a political
organization, I'd say it's a function of 1) the value of the networks
defined by the standard protocols it has produced to the present, and 2)
the forecasted increase in value derived from the standards the world
expects it will produce in the future.
The obvious (but meaningless) answer is "as many as needed".
Please allow me to speculate that what the Chair meant to say was "as
many or as few as will serve to optimize the present and future value of
the Internet."
The more interesting question is whether the IETF process is well suited
to finding the right number of standards or protocols for any given
purpose. On *that* subject, I will demure to wiser and older hands than
myself. For now, anyway.
--
j h woodyatt <jhw(_at_)wetware(_dot_)com>