On 23/03/2013 01:46, Keith Moore wrote:
On 03/22/2013 03:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in
IETF would help minimize the risk that some interests were
shortchanged, but I certainly agree that another factor is a lack of
understanding of, and respect for, the effect of certain changes on
the Internet architecture.
Interesting... that could be the case.
Have we even tried to identify and advertise those architectural
principles since the early days?
It may no longer be achievable, as pressure from vendors for new
features and
functionality drives new protocols and protocol additions, and while
saying "no"
sounds good in theory, the reality is that it probably doesn't really
prevent the
efforts, as much as cause them to be done as via private
vendor=specific efforts...
What's necessary, I think, is to respond to pressure for new features
and functionality differently. Rather than saying yes or no, say "we
have noticed that the existing architecture fails to meet needs X, Y,
and Z; and we propose to change the architecture in such a way to
accommodate those needs while still safeguarding other important
features or interests"
Keith, having been one of the progenitors and the editor of RFC 1958,
I hear what you're saying. On the other hand, I have observed with horror
the whole "clean slate Internet" exercise of the last few years. I am
not optimistic that we could ever reach consensus. In fact I have
been pessimistic about this for years (ever since RFC 2775 in fact).
It's rather like trying to design a new global architecture for the road
system.
Brian