At 18:16 05/04/2006, Michel Py wrote:
Assuming that IETFers and their ideas on how to configure a network are
representative of the general consumer base is ignoring this rich
tapestry.
I am no IETFer as you refer to them. I am an unhappy user of IETF
deliverables, as both a common enduser and as a network metastructure
architect. I am also a non-commercial R&D matching the IAB's RFC 3869
criteria. So I think I can add to this point.
My interest is in IETF deliverable QA. I must say I gave up for a
long expecting the IETF to _globally_ address practical user needs
(this thread shows it). My only concern is that the IETF (directly
[ex. BCP 47 on internationalization] or indirectly (ex. NATs)) does
not prevent interoperability with the way their RFCs (or lack of) are
market/grassroots applied. I hoped. But I am now afraid the
Multilingual and Multilateral International Network convergence and
evolution will be documented and organised elsewhere.
I introduced a project I cannot follow right now due to family
reasons, calendar technical priorities and Brian's attempt to review
the Internet standard process description. But I will. This project
is an IGFTF I documented in my positive (on other grounds) appeal to
the IAB. It is to: (a) get users inputs documented in an IETF
readable way (b) through a liaison with the IGF considered as a
consistent and a main users structure (c) watching at the ethic of
the IETF answer - the whole thing being strictly respectful of the
Internet standard process.
But there are certainly other possibilities to get insights of the
"ignored rich tapestry". Was ever a WG-USERS considered by the
IETF? Would it not be a proper time, before the "Intenat" succumbs
under the weight of unstructured 4500 RFCs? Its charter would be to
understand how the users needs should be introduced within the
Internet standard process.
How to do for the IETF deliverable to be readable by 6.5 billions
people and developers of every languages rather by some thousands.
How to do to find the IETF authoritative response on any issue in a
matter of seconds.
How to stay in phase with the users' practical needs and practices,
so they do not invent new NATlike solutions.
How to do not to PR-defamact users for obtaining the non-excluding
and externally interoperable consensus they were denied (and further
on violated for that reason). May be even to even consider proposing
built-in interoperability with non-IETF solutions ...
etc.
jfc
An IETF deliverables user.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf