. And that are in and of themselves the same for
all they are applied to or around.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF
Harald,
I almost feel that this should just be dropped from the statement. My
reasons being that I have been told by the IESG about protocol
extensibility is that the IETF wants to have a tighter control over protocol
extensibility, even for extensions thought to be for limited use
or
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more
detail -
but we failed to get that finished.
I should probably get out more, but I wasn't familiar
--On 24. oktober 2003 18:07 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Harald,
I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
It is important that this is For the Internet, and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
real-world applications,
Hi Harald,
I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
It is important that this is For the Internet, and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
real-world applications, such as controlling street lights, but the
IETF does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald In the discussions leading up to this document, we actually had 3
Harald different other levels of inclusivity up for consideration:
okay, I very much like these descriptions.
So yes Dean, I think you elude to the central issue - what is the common
interest, and as the community was propelled almost forceably, and
inexorably by market forces from a world where as Randy put it
operators cooperated together, in a non-commercial endeavor based on
very non-commercial
The number of application protocols with the oomph to break the
Internet is quite small
however, it's not safe to assume that it's zero. any new killer app that were
poorly designed could do it.
also, you might be underestimating the damage done by HTTP (1.0 or later).
The number of application protocols with the oomph to break the
Internet is quite small
OK, I've gotta ask - how many times do we break the Internet before we
reverse this reasoning? (How many times is too many?)
(signed) curious
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
this is the result of an historical trust model, where people
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Eric Rosen wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely
standards for the Internet.
It is important that this is For the Internet, and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a
Simon Woodside;
Yes, and towards a possibly more contentious application, see Voice over
IP. Lots of VoIP work is being done without involving the internet at
all. Used by telecoms for telecoms applications, where best effort
isn't good enough because it needs to keep working when the power
From: Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Sheesh!--next you'll be telling us that you never heard the phrase
out of scope before last week.
Sure I have. There's hardly a piece of work done by the IETF that someone
hasn't claimed to be out of scope. It's just that the phrase is not
Scoping is certainly used successfully as an argument at the WG level,
through the more common pronnouncement that would require a change
to the charter.. Scoping aids WGs in being able to move the ball
forward in the direction of predfined goals, and hence is a process aid.
This is
The example I'm thinking about involved predecessors to OpenGL.
As this example doesn't even involve communication over a network, I would
agree that it is out of scope. ...
[OpenGL example]
It's not that other examples such as X couldn't have used more network knowledge to
avoid problems
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
this is the result of an historical trust model, where people using the
Internet
The gist of this comment is that someone developing a network
application protocol ought to somehow get a blessing from the IETF.
Reality check. Who got the IETF approval to deploy ICQ, Kazaa, or for
that matter HTTP?
The fact that someone did something without the IETF's approval does
According to you, this has nothing to do with the IETF. It might
result
in the congestive collapse of the Internet, but who cares, the IETF
doesn't do street lights. I would like to see the criteria
which
determine that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights
since both you and Scott pointed out this one
--On 15. oktober 2003 12:48 -0400 Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant,
and timely standards for the Internet.
I actually believe IETF has a somewhat wider purpose than that.
--On 16. oktober 2003 13:15 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- For the Internet - only the stuff that is directly involved in
making the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management.
Adopting this as the IETF's
Christian,
we might be looking through opposite ends of this tunnel.
--On 16. oktober 2003 15:15 -0700 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when
talking
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk
Eric,
--On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's test this assertion. Suppose a consortium of electric
companies develops a UDP-based protocol for monitoring and controlling
street lights. It turns out that this protocol generates an unbounded
amount
Harald.
Interesting, important, thanks.
Internet usage
==
One of the large dynamics not explicitly mentioned is the increased
commercial usage/value of the Internet and how that drives the community
in new directions.
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is
That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
50% of them) needed to make the Internet work.
There have been many things that the IETF
From: Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement.
If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the
IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than
50% of them) needed to make the Internet work.
% --On 15. oktober 2003 12:57 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Well, let's test this assertion. Suppose a consortium of electric
% companies develops a UDP-based protocol for monitoring and controlling
% street lights. It turns out that this protocol generates an unbounded
%
statement on the IETF mission, you should make it clear
that the IESG is proposing to make a complete change in the IETF mission.
Instead, you give the impression that the IESG thinks that for the
Internet is and has always been the IETF's mission.
The formulation I like
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:48:37 EDT, Keith Moore said:
I certainly don't believe only in rough consensus and running code -
I also believe in explicit definition of goals and requirements,
careful design by knowledgable experts, analysis, iterative
specification, wide public review, etc.
Of
It's an interesting document, but it looks to me a bit much
like a problem description and I'm not sure how it relates
to other existing work (the problem description document in
the problem working group, most obviously). I particularly
liked the discussion of the IETF mission - it could provide
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 11:48:10PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
As part of the discussions about change process within
the IETF, the IESG has come to believe that a somewhat longer statement of
the IETF's mission and social dynamics might provide useful context for the
overall, I like the document. some comments:
However, while Dave Clark's famous saying
We do not believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
We believe only in rough consensus and running code,
is this an accurate quote? I've usually seen it written
We reject kings,
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and timely
standards for the Internet.
It is important that this is For the Internet, and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a myriad of
real-world applications, such as controlling
Hi Scott,
Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. It would
be much more useful for you to reaffirm the fundamental
principles that are
One would hope instead that the IETF would want to
encourage competition between different views of Internet evolution, as the
competition of ideas is the way to make progress.
what I would say instead is that the IETF should encourage this competition
within the sphere of architectural
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 01:01:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
Hi Scott,
Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. It would
Greetings,
As part of the discussions about change process within
the IETF, the IESG has come to believe that a somewhat longer statement of
the IETF's mission and social dynamics might provide useful context for the
community's discussion. As part of that, we'd like to put the following
36 matches
Mail list logo
