ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor

2006-06-05 09:02:01
Can someone please explain to me how to remove my email address from the ietf 
mailing list?  Can I just go to ietf.org?Phil Maceri 10247 Barlow 
CrossingPerrysburg, OH 43551Cell: 248-250-1194Home: 586-435-9542

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:35:41 +0200> To: franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org; 
brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> From: jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com> CC: 
rja(_at_)extremenetworks(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>