At 10:08 29-09-2012, IAB Chair wrote:
This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on an
Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards?.
The document is being considered for publication
as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream,
and is available for inspection here:
It was previously mentioned as an individual
comment that "this document is not being
considered for publication as an RFC (at least
within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not
apply". The IETF Chair has stated that there is
rough consensus [1] for signing the
Affirmation. The press releases [2][3][4] have
been issued. If the modern paradigm was used as
a measure, there wasn't broad consensus to sign
the Affirmation. What's the use of this IETF-wide Call?
The press release was a "fait accompli". It
would have been awkward to raise a concern about
it. This document could be qualified as
spineless. The document only highlights that the
IAB has consulted the IETF community after the fact.
Several years ago the following [5] was put
forward as requirements that enable open standards (this is non-IETF material):
1. Open Meeting - all may participate in the standards development process.
2. Consensus - all interests are discussed and
agreement found, no domination.
3. Due Process - balloting and an appeals
process may be used to find resolution.
4. Open IPR - how holders of IPR related to the
standard make available their IPR.
5. One World - same standard for the same capability, world-wide.
6. Open Change - all changes are presented and
agreed in a forum supporting the
five requirements above.
7. Open Documents - committee drafts and
completed standards documents are easily
available for implementation and use.
8. Open Interface - supports proprietary advantage (implementation); each
interface is not hidden or controlled
(implementation); each interface of the
implementation supports migration (use).
9. Open Access - objective conformance
mechanisms for implementation testing and
user evaluation.
10. On-going Support - standards are supported
until user interest ceases rather
than when implementer interest declines.
It was mentioned that "some recognized SSOs
(e.g., ITU) and many consortia (e.g., W3C) have a
pay-to-become-a-member policy". To be fair, it
can also be argued that the IETF has a pay policy
for meetings. Surprisingly, the IETF does not
meet Requirement 2 as the "Area Directors have a
dictatorial level of control over the
standardization decisions in their area". It is
interesting to note that there are different interpretations of "consensus".
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74753.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74758.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/08/openstand.html.en
4. http://standards.ieee.org/news/2012/openstand.html
5. Credits to Ken Krechmer