On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
In the old engineering attitude, working groups were created because
several like-minded engineers wanted to develop some function, or
protocol. It was important for them to get together, so they could
voluntarily agree on the details. If they did not, each would develop
their own version, and there will be no interoperability. The
result was
documented in a set of RFC, so that whoever wanted to develop a
compatible product could. IANA registries are used to ensure that when
options arise, the options are numbered in an orderly manner.
In the policy making attitude, working groups are created to control
evolution of a particular function. The working group members are
concerned that someone else might be implementing something harmful to
the Internet. Their goal is not so much to develop products as to
ensure
that non-conforming products do not get developed. IANA registries are
used to control extensibility of the resulting protocols, to make sure
that "bad" options never get a number.
In short, the IETF evolved from an informal gathering where engineers
will agree on how to do things, to a reactive body that mostly aims at
controlling evolution of the Internet. Is that really what we want?
Hi Christian,
I'm not sure that we have much of a choice. If there is no control
over how the technology is used, then forces that see an advantage in
doing something harmful to the Internet will come into play. A fine
example of this already exists with address space. We understand
that address space, while large, is finite, and we've created policy
(delegated to the RIRs) to ensure that address space requests are
duly justified.
We have created the ultimate Commons, and it is up to us to create
the policy to prevent the associated tragedy.
Regards,
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf