Dear Internet Architecture Board,
At 16:12 22-03-2011, Peterson, Jon wrote:
I am glad to see the plenary has already inspired some good
discussion before it has even taken place. I only worry that the
more dissent is vented in this thread, the more the actually plenary
will be a let-down, but...
I share your concern about that. :-)
help to make them better. Websockets will exist, in one form of
another, the question is whether they will have the benefit of IETF
review, of our understanding of transports, of NATs, of security, of
all the things that make sockets hard. By addressing itself to these
emerging application architectures, the IETF can find new areas of
relevance and potentially attract new participants and ideas to our community.
The question is whether people will understand the benefits of IETF
review and consider the input from other areas. It is better if
people bring ideas to the IETF out of their own choosing instead of
doing so reluctantly.
The purpose of this plenary is not to say that this web architecture
should be the exclusive focus of the Apps Area, nor to delineate
some specific set of work that should
be replaced by something else. That's why, in our plan for this,
we didn't adopt a point/counterpoint format - I don't really think
web applications and standalone
The topic that the IAB selected might be viewed as thought provoking.
We do hope that the plenary will help people to see this new work
as a space where the IETF can make a meaningful contribution and
not, say, as "an abomination."
That would be one of the reactions to expect at the mic line. It is
somewhat foolhardy of the IAB to expect a meaningful contribution in
a discussion about RFC 3093.
If, in light of all this, people feel that emergency
course-correction is required in order for this plenary to be useful
to the community, don't hesitate to raise any specific ideas with me
or the IAB as a whole, and we'll see what we can do in our remaining
couple days here.
The technical plenary could be moved to Friday. :-)
Instead of an emergency course-correction, I suggest that the IAB
publishes its minutes.
I'll include some text from draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00
which provides a basis for this discussion.
In Section 1:
"The younger generation of Internet users today has a very
different Internet experience than users 10 years ago."
This fashions the design choices.
In Section 2:
"This attitude is not particularly surprising given that many
standardization participants in the real-time communication area look
back to a regime that exactly follows a highly standardised eco-
system, namely the telecommunication business."
Does the IAB have an opinion about adopting such a model?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf