Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV

--On Tuesday, June 28, 2005 09:48 -0700 Bob Hinden 
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Keith,
>
> At 05:40 AM 06/28/2005, Keith Moore wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that it's quite reasonable to require
> > IESG approval  of an IP-level option.  IMHO the IESG should
> > solicit public input before  making such a decision, probably
> > in the form of a Last Call.  But the  potential for harm is
> > such that somebody needs to have the ability to say  "no".
> > Or to put it another way, IMHO we need both convincing
> > evidence of  technical soundness, ideally supported by
> > analysis, and a compelling  argument of benefit for the
> > Internet community, to justify adding a new  option to the IP
> > layer.  We already have too much variation in the  operating
> > environment from one network to another.
> Well said.
>
> I would be troubled by any change to IP (including new
> options) that was not discussed in the IETF, documented in an
> RFC, and have declared IPR.  In the hour glass model of the IP
> architecture these are changes that go in the skinny waist.  A
> place in the architecture where we want to be conservative
> adding new things (as opposed to higher up where we clearly
> want lots of diversity and liberal assignment policies).
Sigh.  I'm going to try one last time.  Probably I should just 
give up.
Bob and Keith,

As far as protocol changes, adding stuff to IP, etc., I am 100% 
in agreement with you.  We should be cautious, we should 
exercise considerable diligence, we should not approve anything 
without considerable evidence of informed IETF consensus.  I 
can't figure out how to say that more clearly.
_However_ if some rogue group comes along (and I hope that we 
are a long distance from where Larry Roberts would be considered 
a "rogue group", even though I have disagreed about some things 
he has advocated in the past and may do so in the future) and 
has the resources and commitment to deploy an IP option, I think 
we need to register it to protect the community from the bad 
option, not pretend that not registering it will somehow prevent 
them from deploying their ideas.
And then, if we are convinced the idea is bad enough, we need to 
do what _will_ prevent the bad idea from being actively used, 
which is to do, and write up the analysis of why it is bad and 
what problems it will cause.
But the notion that the IETF can prevent something from 
happening or being deployed by declining to register it, or by 
turning our collective backs on it without any real explanation 
-- even at the waist of the hourglass--  is, in this world, just 
delusional.  And, if that delusion prevents the IETF community 
from explaining, carefully and in public why the idea is a bad 
one, then it is we who are putting the Internet at risk.
  john






_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf