ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

2003-10-28 02:55:02
Harald,


I almost feel that this should just be dropped from the statement.  My
reasons being that I have been told by the IESG about protocol
extensibility is that the IETF wants to have a tighter control over protocol
extensibility, even for extensions thought to be for limited use
or specific networks (for example, cellular networks).  The reason
being is that once something is out there, it often starts to be used
in ways which were not originally planned or used outside of its
original 'limited use' plans.  Therefore, in order to ensure proper
protocol behavior & interoperability, the IESG wants to manage
extensibility.  This has been very true in SIP & Diameter, 
for example.

True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish 
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more detail - 
but we failed to get that finished.

So, I think we have to be careful about what we consider part of
the IETF mission, if we cannot get basic agreement upon the implications
of the mission statement.

On the other hand, we see a protocol like RADIUS, which the IETF
has never done a good job at working with or standardizing, being
developed in 4 or more SDOs, and not in a colaborative manner.  This
makes a big mess with the RADIUS spec, and RADIUS does seem like a
protocol that has a big effect on the Internet.

You'll have no disagreement from me that RADIUS is a problem!

So, in summary, the IESG has shown not to follow the above paragraph,
sometimes even for good reasons.  I can't think of a way in which
modify the paragraph to make it any better - because there will always
be examples of work that the IETF choses to standardize (or not)
which will violate that part of the mission.  Perhaps moving the
'for the internet to the previous paragraph is what is needed.

as I've said before - I don't think we can come up with a mission statement 
that retroactively blesses everything we've done well before, or 
retroactively curses everything we've done badly. And we do require 
flexibility to "do what's right". But without the ability to talk about 
what the mission of the IETF ... I think we'll do badly.

The past is the past, I don't want to revisit the past.  What I want
to do is to look forward.  We should have flexibility in terms of
how to decide what the IETF can do, what it can't do and what it
should (or shouldn't do).  I think we cannot make a blanket statement
in the mission that covers this.

thanks,
John



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