Mark Smith <ietf(_at_)130c04165a5b40404e4440445758487a(_dot_)nosense(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt
I haven't been all that involved in the IETF to have a strong
opinion on the draft. That being said, it sounds good.
Harald (et al) should be commended for this work.
Regarding deleting the appendix, I'd suggest not doing so, as I
think it fits the "Relevant" clause, namely :
"Note that it does not mean "correct" or "positive" - a
report of an experiment that failed, or a specification that
clearly says why you should not use it in a given situation,
can be highly relevant - for deciding what NOT to do."
I think including the possible mission statements that weren't
adequate will help further clarify the one that is.
I must disagree with Mark and agree with Harald. Inclusion of
Appendix A in _this_ document would detract from the sense of closure,
and give the impresssion that the issues it mentions are still open.
If the appendix is retained, and it isn't too much effort,
expanded explanations of why the other mission statement
candidates weren't satisfactory or adequate may be of some value.
I'd be happy to see a separate document describing the process of
reaching this statement of mission.
====
A Few Nits:
4.1
"
" We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user
" empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate
" with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little
" to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the
" technology that we choose to create.
The language here is very good -- in fact, commendable.
But the aim is a trifle off.
Whether we "embrace" "decentralized control" is orthogonal to our
mission. We have designed protocols which work well in the presence of
decentralized control, not because we "embrace" anything, but because
we believed it to be impossible to reach the global scope of today's
Internet _without_ decentralized control. I quite agree that it belongs
in our mission statement.
On the other hand, "edge-user empowerment" is a different animal.
It is _not_ necessary to the existence of the Internet. And it invites
misinterpretation. There's limited consensus today what the "edge"
means. And "empowerment", though it _means_ delegation towards the
edge, is used in so many different ways today that it's semantically
empty.
I suggest eliminating "edge-user empowerment". What I believe
Harald (et al) meant by this is to extend the "decentralized control"
out to the very edge, enabling users at the (loosely-defined) edge
to have sufficient control of their communications to explore new
uses for the Internet. I think we can trust users to work in that
direction without needing a statement here.
With this in mind, a possible wording would be:
+ The concept of decentralized control, initially necessary in order
+ to grow the Internet to global scale, has become a core value to
+ the IETF community. Similarly, the concept of sharing resources
+ without letting ourselves get bogged down in accounting for them
+ has become a core value. We will continue to choose to create
+ technologies that resonate with our core values.
" In attempting to resolve this question, perhaps the fairest balance
" is struck by this formulation: "protocols and practices for which
" secure and scalable implementations are expected to have wide
" deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the
" infrastructure of the Internet."
It's not clear what "question" is being discussed. I'm pretty sure
Harald means the question of whether particular work is included
within the scope of the IETF mission; but this has gotten lost in
context.
Thus I suggest rewording, perhaps something like:
+ In deciding whether particular work is "in-scope" for the IETF, we
+ try to concentrate on "protocols and practices for which secure and
+ scalable implementations are expected to have wide deployment and
+ interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the infrastructure
+ of the Internet."
4.2
"
" The IETF has traditionally been a community for both experimentation
" with things that are not fully understood, standardization of
" protocols for which some understanding has been reached, and
" publication of (and refinement of) protocols originally specified
" outside the IETF process.
Alas, "both" can only connect _two_ choices, and we have at least
three here. I suggest eliminating the word "both".
" In deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the
" IETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the
" potential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields
" information about the fact that an approach is not viable might be as
" worthy of publication as a standard that is technically competent,
" but only useful in a few special cases.
"As worthy of publication as a standard" leads the reader to stumble
over _why_ the failed experiment should be published "as a standard".
(Hey, I warned you I'm picking nits!)
I suggest some shuffling, perhaps like:
+ The type of activity shouldn't drive the decision of whether an
+ activity belongs within the IETF - an Informational RFC describing
+ a failed experiment, showing why that approach is not viable, might
+ be of greater benefit to the Internet than a Standards-track RFC
+ useful in only a few special cases.
====
6. Acknowledgments
Harald asks:
"
" Given how incomplete this section necessarily is, should it just say
" "None mentioned, none forgotten"?
No, it shouldn't (though the temptation is strong). An apology to
those you forgot to mention is appropriate, but you must try to come
up with a list of the most important contributors.
The list in the draft looks good to me.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf