Well said, Joel.
At one time, the Internet was a child and needed to be tended by its
parent in order for it to survive. Now it is considerably bigger and
stronger than its parent. Of course, the parent continues to seek how to
most appropriately help its huge offspring. My own feeling is that the
Internet is too big, diverse, and needy for any one group -- including
its parent -- to meet its needs. The IETF is a useful forum for protocol
and technology development, which is one of the important facets
required by the Internet. By faithfully leveraging this strength we can
assist the Internet. Other groups have other strengths which I hope they
will use for the benefit of all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:01 AM
To: esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
I think this is seriously miscontrueing the situation. Different groups
participate in the success of the internet in different ways. I have no
objection to Debian, Apache, Nortel, or Cisco fighting patents
which they believe hurt the internet.
That fight is not the job the IETF has demonstrated skill at, or
interest in. It is not an end-run of the IETF for another organization
to do something
the IETF is not interested in doing.
It is not a threat to the internet or the IETF for other organizations
to
help seek the best interest of the internet. In fact it is necessary.
And I personally would be very unhappy if the IETF were dragged into the
philosophical and legal argument as to whether patents qua patents
(whether
restricted to software or all inventsion) are a good idea, a bad idea, a
good idea gone bad, or some other view. The IETF is not the forum for
promoting or advancing such views.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:59 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>:
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There
are all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and
the IESG do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the
default IETF conditions (RAND) are realistic and acceptable.
If IETF continues to believe this, groups like Apache and Debian will
continue to have to end-run IETF by doing the job of defending the
Internet commons that IETF is abdicating, and IETF's authority will
evaporate.
It is not 1982 or even 1992 any more. Conditions have changed
dramatically. I would hate to see IETF dwindle into irrelevance, but
that is exactly where statements like this are pointing.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S.
Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf