At 16:00 27/05/2006, Dave Crocker wrote/
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
So the reason for the "IETF" in "IETF Operational Notes" is
"related to the IETF", not "approved by the IETF".
Much like the way "Internet Engineering Task Force" is related to
the Internet, not approved by the Internet......
1. The Internet is not an organized, decision-making body. The IETF
and the IESG are.
2. It has already been noted that the series will contain documents
that are not operational.
3. The question is how the title of the series will actually be
interpreted by average folk on the Internet, not what you might have intended.
Harald,
You have a complete and consistent IETF and Internet vision you try
impose step by step. I have objections to the vision and no objection
to the try, but why to hide it? IONs root in RFC 3935 part 3.
In using your own wording: you think the IETF participants are to
help their leaders influencing the world in the way to design, use
and manage the global digital ecosystem, for an Internet made of the
global collection of machines, etc. to work better, along the core
values of the IETF. This is because there are many reasons why
decisions may have to be made by these chosen trusted leaders
exercising their good judgement, doing the right thing according to
the common mission, and acting on behalf of the IETF without
consulting the entire IETF first. These reasons include the
near-impossibility of getting an informed consensus opinion on a
complex subject of several thousand people in a short time. I object
to quite everything, but I agree that IETF needs a delegation doctrine.
Your proposition is to provide these leaders with the necessary
framework to sign "presidential orders" in their area of authority.
OK, but you do not document:
- the rules to assign someone or some body ION approval authority,
- the IETF control and renewal mechanism,
- the subsidiarity rules to apply.
Without them, instead of a simplifying system we would implement
feudalism. Each ION approval body acquires the privilege to issue
document series which may create conflicts, confusions and feuds.
This may significantly increase the number of appeals. It may also
lead to alternative reference sources invading the RFC territories (I
see for example that you want to address via ION your problems with
RFC 3683, ...)
This would lead to a barbarization of the IETF. But I see you foresaw
this in 2.2. and a further IETF rebuild (from one of the created ION
p principalities?). I would suggest these points to be addressed
before enacting this system.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf