% --On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen <erosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
%
% > Well, let's test this assertion. Suppose a consortium of electric
% > companies develops a UDP-based protocol for monitoring and controlling
% > street lights. It turns out that this protocol generates an unbounded
% > amount of traffic (say, proportional to the square of the number of
% > street lights in the world), has no congestion control, and no
% > security, but is expected to run over the Internet.
% >
% > According to you, this has nothing to do with the IETF. It might result
% > in the congestive collapse of the Internet, but who cares, the IETF
% > doesn't do street lights. I would like to see the criteria which
% > determine that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights don't!
%
% thanks for making the most concise statement of the conflict here in the
% discussion so far!
% I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when talking
% about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk about
% it, and attempt to *resolve* the issue, we will go on revisiting the issue
% forever, with nothing but wasted energy to show for it.
%
% In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3 different
% other levels of "inclusivity" up for consideration:
%
% - "Everything that runs over the Internet is appropriate for IETF
%
% - "Everything that needs open, documented interoperability and runs over
% the Internet is appropriate for IETF
%
% - "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that needs to be
% open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF standardization".
%
% - "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is appropriate for
% IETF standardization".
% - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly involved in making
% the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
%
% a discussion argue based on "the mission of the IETF", with conflicting
% definitions, is not the best thing for the Internet.
%
% Harald
I guess for me, I always thought that the IETF and its
precursors were interested in developing engineering
solutions / designing protocols that would allow "end2end or
any2any" communications, regardless of underlying transport
media, be it seismic wave, avian carrier, radio waves or
the PSTN. - At no time did I ever truly beleive that
the systems that used these protocols/solutions would always
be on and fully connected. Infrastructures that use IETF
products have nearly always been only partially connected
and many systems are not always on.
So while a design goal might have been to support always
on/fully connected state, the reality is that infrastructres
have nearly always been disjoint/unconnected and endpoints
come and go. But when they are connectable, they should
function in a seamless, e2e fashion, at least IMHO.
And then you neglect an unstated presumption in the last
two bullet points: As perceived by who?
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).