On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote:
Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the
session
and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say
listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF
process to
actually pay the costs of attending the session.
Most of the drive-by hummers have their head buried in their email or
other laptop work, so the expense they run for looking up to hum once
or twice isn't at all onerous. At least in this case, the drive-by
emailers had to spend some thought cycles on the email they composed.
Just because somebody is present at an IETF meeting to truly
participate in working group A, doesn't mean they've invested much to
casually swing by working group B and be a drive-by hummer.
And under IETF process,
concensus isn't determined in a F2F meeting.
There is much lip-service about this, but in practice F2F meetings
are given more importance in the deciding factors of the IETF.
The IETF is supposed to be fostering the engineering of the Internet.
Refusing to foster the engineering process based on religious or
political
or even phantom economic concerns doesn't foster better operation
of the
Internet.
I agree with you in that these factors should not outweigh technical
considerations. But the IETF should also not operate in a vacuum.
That's the fastest way to irrelevance.
It is in the greater interest of the Internet to have ANY protocol
used to
define the meaning of some bits on the wires of the Internet well
documented. At least three reasons come to mind .. a) I can better
understand the impact of the protocol on other traffic and perhaps
even
document issues to the originator of the traffic if what I observe
doesn't
agree with the documentation AND seems to be causing my organization a
problem. b) Better to know about a documented patent claim than to
have it
hidden and waiting to bite me when I re-invent it, etc. c) Folks
concerned
about security vulnerabilities have starting point for their analysis
These are all excellent points, but looking over this draft it is not
obvious that there is a documented patent claim. I have to get to
the boilerplate at the end, follow a link and do a bit of searching.
Perhaps the IETF ought to consider a Known IPR Claims Section in
drafts/RFCs.
BTW, could a ToC be added to this doc before publication?
-andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf