|
Re: alternative to the spam filtering of the IETF's users
2004-11-23 09:06:52
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:
your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing.
You managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should
have just wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ...
I'm sure that there's a lot of other people like me who would
appreciate you actually saying something next time. Try actually
saying something next time instead of waving your hands and saying
"he's wrong."
training my spam filters on you,
This is typical of 50% of the reactions (no more :-) I privately receive
and would like to positively build on it.
I think the yahoo comment is still (mostly) valid. Can you/anyone
tell me, is all of this IPng, NAT, etc., mail leading anywhere,
or is it just ranting and venting? If you and others can build
something positive out of it (even if it's just Cisco releasing
some box that supports IPv6 like Jeroen(?) requested), so be it,
but so far it's more like, "I told you so." "No, I told *you*
so."
This member actually perfectly understood the message I want to convey:
the reason why Harald is right about IPv6 is the IETF disregard for the
users ways. While what builds a network is not the way it is designed
but the way it is collectively used.
When IETF Members spam filter users, they spam filter those who vote for
politicians, do not buy IPv6 and make their living. They may make
themselves happy but they fail their mission, waste their time and the
time of billions. There should be another solution.
I accept I send hundreds of words: I wish I could avoid it and I have a
proposition to spare you that. But in a globally users hostile arena, I
am one of the very few users who survives your ways of thinking and
working, and I never know what will hit who and when. Smoke screening
suggestions of mine is also a way to give them a chance: this boring
work pays back and has some real impact. Not as much as I wish, and this
I would also want to change it.
My target is not like most of you that it works, it is smart, it follows
the IETF core values or it makes a name of yourself. My target is that
the final deliverable is societally, economically and politically the
best and the most quickly globally accepted solution. IPv6, IDNA , spam,
security ... show that this is not always the case.
In the case of IPv6, this debate has brought all the elements to
understand the problem, to treat it properly and to fix it for a quick
take over of IPv6. I do not care if my contribution pleased or not: I
brought to some third party analyzing the whole threat some more
elements necessary to conclude I brought them in a users manner: in
saying "this is not what I want" and "this is what I want", what you may
understand as "you are wrong" when you do not want/plan to deliver what
I want. This is in a non construed basis, because I am only representing
some users. Because I am user and not a standardizer. Because it would
prevent suggestions to be picked as belonging to an objected global
picture. But sometimes I detail solutions users might put together,
often with an entirely different vision, what makes them disregarded
until they happen a few long years later.
I said that I had an alternative solution. That solution is a Users Task
Force to organize as an IETF entity. Its purpose is to be consulted in
the course of the Internet standard process. Every user will be able to
come and discuss needs and demands (not solutions). It will be open to
consumer organizations, governments, corporations. This exists on a very
specific issue which is the gTLD as the ICANN GNSO - and is blurred by
political and opinion chitchat. Users can spend 24/366 a day on the
internet and never come across a deliverable of a gTLD. They are
confronted all the day long to IETF deliverables. I am an example of the
"user pollution" of the IETF and the mail I respond to is a perfect
example both of the users and of the IETF problems.
We are reorganizing the IETF. Let add a paragraph about a Network Usage
Task Force and the NUTS (Network Usage Technical Specifications)
expected from it, as a guidance similar to the requests to IAB. And let
stop talking about "trolls" (everyone is someone else's troll): let just
ask them to join the NUTF and let benefit this way from everyone's
input. But in a construed way, in being sure it is the real market
consensual demand. When IAB calls on Gov's funding (RFC 3869) it is
typical to see that the priorities are IETF priorities, not the world's
priorities.
Multilingualism is probably to be the leading issue in the years to
come. This is acknowledged quite everywhere now. Yet RFC 3869 does not
even allude to it. This can be understood as the impact on the network
architecture may be dramatic and the perceived requirements so
contradictory and complex to understand in a predominant ASCII culture.
But to get Gov's financial sponsoring, IAB has to talk about what they
are interested to fund. This dead-end situation would be solved more
easily if there is were a forum where Govs and all may discuss,
understand and present a construed and maintained demand.
I have worked for that in the @large field and I am ready to help
setting this up. I know how organize it and to fund it (through what we
need : market studies and questionnaires add-ons to be sold to
manufacturers and press which also makes an perfect reach-out program:
to listen to the people for what is to be their daily life tools).
Otherwise, this will be organized by the ITU (they already have it by
Govs and major Telcos only - and now is the time it is decided through
the WSIS). ITU will progressively take IANA functions. Standards will
increasingly be designed at the ITU-T. And IPv6, IDNA, spam and critical
risks will have been the X.500 of the IETF. We cannot avoid to work with
the ITU because they gather the main users of the IETF deliverables. But
we can do it in our terms and in terms more acceptable to the users. So
everything works better, what ITU is also interested in.
This means that the users demand is considered at the source of the IETF
thinking, not as an ITU-T filtering of its deliverables. This also means
that we want an ITU I-Sector to interface and support the
Internet/Intelligent Continuity world and plan for a Content and Service
oriented NGN, not only smart bandwidth. ITU-T is a low layers oriented
organization, we it at its proper place and to prevent confusion.
IPv6 is a good example: the IETF deliverable is OK (again Harald is
right). But the main deliverable for the user is a worldwide, Gov
accepted, numbering plan structure. IPv6 is built to be quite
transparent to numbering plan structure. So the ITU-T is the blocking
factor. Should that have been discussed and identified by the NUTF::
instead of "get[ing] the hell out of the way", ITU-I or ICANN (as now
IANA is an ICANN function disputed by ITU) would have discussed in a
joint conference with ITU-T a long ago and permitted the IETF to
continue working on a real life universal IPv6.
Or, I will continue :-)
--
~Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|