On 03/23/2013 02:27 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why
there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF.
The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take
advantage of the Internet without having
The point is that *if* we had more diversity along many of the discussed
lines, we'd be far better off. For instance, having people from multiple
organisations provide input to a last would be preferable to just a few.
Similarly with the other dimensions of diversity. When I talked to some of
this late but I thought I'd comment on one part of it.
On 3/20/13 3:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and the development
of the IETF to focus on more particular core aspects of the Internet (like
routing) as opposed to what the small shops
Joel,
Different doesn't generally mean good, in the peering case.
There are plenty of examples of monopoly PTTs or regulators engaging in
behavior that impacts the usability of or availability of traffic exchange,
there's all sorts of market failures, and there's deliberately
To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why
there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF.
The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take
advantage of the Internet without having to come to the IETF to standardize
anything
--On Saturday, March 23, 2013 03:17 +0100 Martin Rex
m...@sap.com wrote:
Melinda Shore wrote:
...
To me, this gatekeeping looks more like an act of
self-defence. When I started going to IETFs in July 1995 (33rd
IETF in Stockholm), there were only 2-hour slots and a number
of WGs were using
Martin
I don't want to prolong this sub-sub-sub-thread but really I can't
leave this unchallenged:
On 23/03/2013 04:46, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
My impression of todays IESG role, in particular taking their
balloting rules and their actual balloting
Corporate Diversity
On 3/22/13 6:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant each. From
my experience I'd say you both actually have an appreciation of the
overall elephant but that's not coming out in this kind of thread.
Well, maybe, but it seems
On 3/22/2013 8:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
While I work for a very large shop now, for most of my career I have
worked for small or mid-size shops. Even startups. And all saw value
in sending me to IETF meetings.
Personal reference can be helpful for suggesting lines of analysis, but
On 23/03/2013 18:00, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/22/2013 8:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
While I work for a very large shop now, for most of my career I have
worked for small or mid-size shops. Even startups. And all saw value
in sending me to IETF meetings.
Personal reference can be
On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 3/22/2013 4:43 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
Granted, it may be that the list of _qualified_ candidates is less
diverse than the set of all people who are willing to run. But, if so,
that isn't because there aren't companies
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.comwrote:
Quite the contrary. I am interpreting a few of the 'diversity' posts as
saying the IETF has fewer companies participating and much fewer smaller
companies participating. And I am interpreting those posts as implying
On Mar 22, 2013, at 5:47 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
But I suspect the idea that there are fewer companies when the word startup
seems to automatically imply something Internet related is wrong. There's
plenty of small companies, but engagement in the IETF is either
On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
...
Another result is that the Internet architecture has gone to hell, and we're
now spending a huge amount of effort building kludges to fix the problems
associated with other kludges and the new kludges will
On 3/22/2013 4:43 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
Granted, it may be that the list of _qualified_ candidates is less
diverse than the set of all people who are willing to run. But, if so,
that isn't because there aren't companies who are willing/able to
Melinda Shore wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
As I understand and see it, the IESG is running IETF processes,
is mentoring IETF processes (towards WG Chairs, BOFs, individuals
with complaints/appeals), and is trying to keep an eye on the
overall architecture, and put togethe the pieces from
On 3/22/13 6:17 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Before allowing a new WG to start, ADs seem to make an assessment
of whether there are sufficient volunteers of both kinds to do the
work, whether there is sufficient expertise in the IETF to perform
adequate review of the results and whether there is
On 03/23/2013 02:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Sorry, Martin, but you're not describing how the IETF actually
works.
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not
On 3/22/13 6:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
out in this kind of thread.
Well, maybe, but it seems to me that he's
On 21/03/13 1:33 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 23:36 +0100 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and
the development of the IETF to focus on more particular core
aspects of the Internet (like routing) as
Melinda Shore wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
out in this kind of thread.
Since I personally participated only
I would have to disagree with:
On 3/22/2013 11:17 PM, Mark Prior wrote:
...
Hi John,
I think that any small shop (whatever that means) would be put off if
they sent someone to an IETF as it appears that it is dominated by the
big vendors pushing their own agendas. Given that impression I
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
My impression of todays IESG role, in particular taking their
balloting rules and their actual balloting results into account,
is more of a confirming body of work that happened elsewhere
(primarily in the IETF, typically in IETF WGs, but
C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Discussion; Eric Burger
Subject: Re: Less Corporate Diversity
I would have to disagree with:
On 3/22/2013 11:17 PM, Mark Prior wrote:
...
Hi John,
I think that any small shop (whatever that means) would be put off if
they sent someone to an IETF as it appears
Martin,
On 21/03/2013 00:51, Martin Rex wrote:
...
My impression of todays IESG role, in particular taking their
balloting rules and their actual balloting results into account,
is more of a confirming body of work that happened elsewhere
(primarily in the IETF, typically in IETF WGs, but
On 03/20/2013 07:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
The more diverse the culture, the higher the probability for
miscommunication (misunderstanding and taking offense).
True, but without the diversity, the solutions provided by IETF are less
likely to serve the interests of the extremely diverse Internet
On 03/20/2013 08:51 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
IMHO, the IESG is not (and maybe never was?) a committee where_each_
member reviews_all_ of the work, where_each_ forms his very own opionion,
and where all of them caste a VOTE at the end, so that the diversity
within that committee would be vitally
--On Thursday, March 21, 2013 08:53 + Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Individual ADs vary in their
habits according to workload, but my sense is that there is a
strong sense of collective responsibility and definitely not a
sense of rubber stamping. You could check
Keith Moore wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
IMHO, the IESG is not (and maybe never was?) a committee where_each_
member reviews_all_ of the work, where_each_ forms his very own opionion,
and where all of them caste a VOTE at the end, so that the diversity
within that committee would be
On 3/21/13 8:23 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
As I understand and see it, the IESG is running IETF processes,
is mentoring IETF processes (towards WG Chairs, BOFs, individuals
with complaints/appeals), and is trying to keep an eye on the
overall architecture, and put togethe the pieces from reviews
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
If everybody serving that gatekeeper function comes from a similar
background (western white guy working for a large manufacturer)
To toy with Godwin's law for a moment - this sounds rather like western white
guy physics...
Noel
--On Thursday, March 21, 2013 17:23 +0100 Martin Rex
m...@sap.com wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
...
IESG is the review body of last resort. When WGs do a poor
job of review, especially cross-area review, the burden
falls on IESG to take up the slack.
As I understand and see it, the IESG is
draft-mrex-tls-secure-renegotiation-04 lists Martin Rex as one of the
authors. According to the authors of RFC 6176 Martin Rex has
reviewed that specification. According to the editor of RFC 4752
Martin Rex has contributed to the document.
If being a RFC author is what matters I should stop
On 3/21/13 9:19 AM, SM wrote:
I welcome feedback from anyone.
All righty, then. I do think that when someone is offering an
opinion on the role of the IESG in moving work through the IETF,
it's helpful if they've actually brought new work to the IETF,
socialized it, negotiated with ADs around
--On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:51 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/13 9:19 AM, SM wrote:
I welcome feedback from anyone.
All righty, then. I do think that when someone is offering an
opinion on the role of the IESG in moving work through the
IETF, it's
Quite the contrary. I am interpreting a few of the 'diversity' posts as saying
the IETF has fewer companies participating and much fewer smaller companies
participating. And I am interpreting those posts as implying some nefarious
plot on the part of large, Western,
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a result
of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious
forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to
deal with the latter, but there is not much we can do about
On 03/20/2013 12:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a result
of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious
forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to
deal with the
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:18:24PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a
result of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to
nefarious forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have
mechanisms to
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and the development
of the IETF to focus on more particular core aspects of the Internet (like
routing) as opposed to what the small shops might work on.
But I think we are missing a bit of the point in this discussion. I do not feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/20/13 2:37 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:18:24PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the
IETF a result of market forces, like consolidation and
bankruptcy, as opposed to
Jari Arkko wrote:
But I think we are missing a bit of the point in this discussion.
I do not feel that we need to prove we are somehow no worse than
industry average. The point is that *if* we had more diversity along
many of the discussed lines, we'd be far better off. For instance,
having
On 3/20/13 3:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a few big vendors bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would bring a
Melinda Shore wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a few big vendors bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would
On 3/20/13 4:51 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I'm having difficulties to follow (but I'm also new to diversity discussions).
It is my understanding that work in the IETF is done by individual
participants within Working Groups or as individuals. Review seems to
happen within WGs, and the review
: Re: Less Corporate Diversity
On 3/20/13 4:51 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I'm having difficulties to follow (but I'm also new to diversity discussions).
It is my understanding that work in the IETF is done by individual
participants within Working Groups or as individuals. Review seems to
happen
--On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 23:36 +0100 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and
the development of the IETF to focus on more particular core
aspects of the Internet (like routing) as opposed to what the
small shops might work
On 3/20/2013 3:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in
the IETF a result of market forces, like consolidation and
bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious forces, like a company
hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to deal
with the
48 matches
Mail list logo
