Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor

Dear Franck,
the reference is not ISOC nor the IETF. The reference is the user. 
Hence, the networking solution people may use on the digital 
ecosystem they built and own in common. The difficulty is to evaluate 
from past and present IETF/ISOC contributions their future cons and 
pros; and the methods for their pros to keep being efficient and 
their cons to be corrected. This concerns the time proven/dusted 
approach of their "affinity group" (RFC 3774) - among the billions 
mentionned by Brian. Can they still deliver? Not easy as those who 
think "no", or are confused (the users?) are not available for 
comment, or PR-actionned.
Some questions are:
- what are the users' needs which are solved, and not solved?
- why was the IETF good as solving them, poor at not solving them?
- what should be the resulting architecture we should support and how 
should we support it?
- is the IETF/IAB/IESG/IASA/ISOC adapted to produce the deliverables 
this architecture requires?
- what about users' QA?

Please reread RFC 3774, 3935, 3968. This kind of self-analysis is 
impressive. It should help. They all tell what is to be corrected. 
Starting with the mission and purpose of the IETF. It is not to make 
the Internet work better in influencing people (where legitimacy, 
capacity and competence would come from?). But it is to tell people 
how they can better build, manage and interopate their own system.
jfc



At 14:34 05/06/2006, Franck Martin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> All,
>
> I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is
> on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org)
>
> While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still
> consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to
> better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point
> of view is interesting for me.
>
> I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best
> help it.
>
> IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at
> www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris).
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> | Ran,
> |
> | RJ Atkinson wrote:
> |
> |> Previously, someone wrote:
> |>
> |>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major
> |>> concern.
> |>>
> |>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to
> |>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> Incorrect.  As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has
> |> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor.
> |>
> |> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by
> |> (D)ARPA.  More recently, some large commercial firms have donated
> |> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the
> |> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those
> |> funds. [1]
> |
> |
> | I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have
> | changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the
> | RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently,
> | ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and
> | extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At
> | some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair
> | and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these
> | expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently,
> | and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the
> | funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the
> | Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current*
> | situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member
> | contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the
> | RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget.
> |
> | This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the
> | least.
> |
> | With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous
> | meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is
> | that representatives there consistently stated support of the
> | "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC.
> | Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that
> | pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to
> | the creation of IASA.
> |
> |
>
> - --
> - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Franck Martin
> franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org
> "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
> G. Bachelard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEhCTlvnmeYIHZEyARAtTBAJwLUb5A7+mdSjDPGxaVY/9LGSDMlACeIYxh
> MWceB9CzA8a/Wr6V7oZZSfM=
> =vYIH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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