Michel,
Yep, I am aware that there are some folk wedged. However I believe
that there are also folk who are not wedged and I want to reach them and
their managers.
There are other standards bodies where work can take place. Clearly
there is a certain advantage to that particular piece of work taking place
in the IETF. However as Tim Berners-Lee told me the key to getting anywhere
in IETF is to have a credible threat of succession.
In the past three years I have worked on three specs, one is an
OASIS standard, one has just completed W3C last call, the third just started
interop testing. None of the committees took more than eighteen months. All
the specs are being actively deployed by real users and real companies.
I don't think it is necessary for the IETF to compromise its
principles to be effective. Open and inclusive is not incompatible with
Roberts Rules of Order.
As with spam, I would very much like the IETF to be a part of the
solution. What I will not allow is for IETF inertia and cliques to become a
part of the problem.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Py
[mailto:michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department
formally adopts IPv6)
Phill,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Simply repeating the end to end dogma is not going to provide
a solution. The internet people are using is not end to end.
NAT boxes and firewalls play an important and necessary
security role. We need a standard for a superNAT box that
provides both security and protocol bridging functions.
This is a politically courageous post but I'm afraid that the
end-to-end
dogma _is_ the IETF. WRT IPv6, the pragmatic point of view of doing
something along the lines of what you proposed is that it
will raise so
much opposition that it will go nowhere, so why bother in the first
place?
Michel.