ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Facts, please, not handwaving

2006-09-18 19:38:47
Jefsey_Morfin wrote:

The Internet has dramatically increased this to the point we
have accepted it as a virtual and a global world, i.e. a
conceptual and geographical equivalent coverage to reality.
The IETF is therefore in the core of this

But not alone, googlebot, wikipedia, and some other companies
are nearer to that core.

the support of what people are to believe to be their
_unique_ virtuality.

I don't believe in "unique", and I don't believe in arbitrary
borders between "real" and "virtual".  

The RFC system is not accompanied by a network ontology RFCs
would update.

Evolving as needed.  Today you can get human readable meta data
for RFCs with the rfc-editor.org search engine, use ietf.tools,
Bill's additional dependency tools, etc.  Some years ago I had
only a CD ROM and grep.
 
There is therefore no description of the virtuality the IETF
develops and the world is to beleive in.

If we're in a sub-sub-sub-thread of "newtrk" (and not "NomCom")
here, then IIRC one conclusion was that everybody is free to
write "overview" documents about everything (s)he cares about.

Getting rough consensus for a publication as an IETF RFC is of
course a separate issue.

reality is diverse, so the virtuality must be diverse

Yes, therefore please don't write "unique" outside of contexts
where it's clear / necessary / desirable / ... (roll your own).

IETF wants to influence THE way people design, use, and
manage the Internet.

There's no "THE way" in RFC 3935.

the way RFC 4646 is disrespected and therefore not
interoperable.

You can bury that troll now, it's dead and begins to smell.

IMHO this comes from its decision method (rough consensus).
It is a major step _ahead_ over "democratic" votes, but
there is still a long cultural way to reach the adequate
"concerted consensus" necessary to the subsidiarity of our
networked technical, societial, industrial, political
diversified world.

The models you've proposed where apparently based on national
agencies, and I think it's ridiculous if individual experts can
hide themselves behind smoke like "Iceland does not support to
add xyz to standard abc".  And then selling the results of such
dubious activities as wannabe standards.  They almost certainly
have no mandate by (in this example) the people of Iceland.

And even if they would have that mandate, why should this be
better than the mandate of a comparable town which happens to
be no nation ?

This is more complex, but this is the way we live, in
intergovernance.

I'd be not suprised if "rough consensus" comes to a grinding
halt at some point.  Making it more complex isn't attractive.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf