I'm not sure I see the ambiguities you assert.
Pekka Savola wrote:
[..]
- These are so overly broad statements that they're close to unusable
UNLESS you believe IETF is just a rubber-stamping standards
organization. For example, what constitutes "deploying networks"?
IETF certainly shouldn't be go digging fibers, or give advice on how
to dig fibers.
But as the vast evidence makes it clear, most ISPs do a very lousy job
of deploying networks *properly*, causing harm to the Internet as a
whole. Wouldn't it be somewhat in the IETF's business to try to give
advice (using BCP and Info documents) how to do it better?
I can't see your problem here. Clearly we know what it means to
actually deploy a network. Saying that the IETF does not deploy
networks in no way inhibits the IETF from giving guidance to good
(or purported to be good) engineering practise and trade-offs.
So Harald's observation about IETF not deploying networks is spot on.
[..]
Similarly, "building products" is vague, and may become problematic
especially if one believes the IETF (however that decision could be
reached is another can of worms entirely) has the power to say "No, we
don't want to standardize FOO" or "No, we don't want to standardize
the means to do BAR using the approach FOO". Then the vendor could
argue it's not the IETF's business to tell how it should build it's
products.
"Building products" isn't vague at all. By your own example the IETF
isn't building any product, although it might be a nuisance to the marketing
arm of any vendor who wished to build a product that incorporated "non approved"
protocols, techniques or technologies. No problem, vendors do that all
the time. The IETF still does not build products.
[..]
"Regulating the Internet" is also not problem-free. If the IETF
decides not to standarize or publish something which is considered to
be a Bad Thing (e.g., NAT for IPv6, Wiretapping mechanisms, VOIP
Backdoors, etc.etc.) -- couldn't one argue that the IETF is basically
regulating the Internet by some means?
"Regulation" has a specific conotation here of government legislation,
rules or guidelines with operational/legal implications. Having influence
is not the same as regulating, and so Harald's characterisation here
is quite right too. There's no ambiguity. The IETF cannot prevent
things from happening even if does go to great lengths to state
considered, expert, technical opinions.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.