At 21:25 13/07/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
And I think we're at the point where I'm violating my own rule. There
is no concrete proposal here that I can argue in favor of or oppose, so
I think I'd better shut up and wait for one.
Dear Eliot,
IMHO the ambiguity is in the IETF mission. This is why I oppose RFC
3935 and the sentences I recently quoted about "influence" and a
technology not being neutral to IETF values. The IETF should publish
recipes. Not to want to provide guidance. Guidance should belong to
groups committing to deliver comprehensive, consistant, and
maintained network systems, with source code, updates, docs, faqs,
support, etc. They should be the IETF deliverable users. Legitimately
looking for user QA, and their needs to be considered.
Idealy Internet users should be provided every month a CD with the
current release of their favorite netix brand. Like Red Hat, Debbian,
etc. Let imagine the Linux situation if no distribution existed. The
IETF is NOT "to influence people in the way they design, use and
manage the Internet for it to work better" (cf. RFC 3935). It is to
help development teams to better design solutions addressing the end
users needs.
The only way to see an Internet architectural evolution is in having
user internetwork operating systems, using the different IETF, IEEE,
MPEG, ITU, ETSI, etc. propositions and the common bandwidth
convergence in an innovative way. The danger in not preparing,
supporting, and even opposing (as for the Multilingual Internet) such
a necessary/observed evolution, is that these systems will cicumvent
the IETF and will not benefit from its community/experience, and
worse, to delay them.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf