Subject: Re: The IETF Mission

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:00:01 -0500

I think it's on track, as a description of the "common interest"
(a phrase someone used earlier).

I'm still itching for something that acts as a delimeter -- how
do we know whether we, collectively, should be working on X or
ignoring Y?  How can we know when we are "succeeding" at our
mission?

Harald outlined some possibilities in terms of the
scope of the work, and people didn't seem to resonate with that
approach.

Is our mission to collectively work on some selection of things
of common interest?  Do we have common view on means of determining
relevance in "relevant services in transit and edge networks"?
Are we obligated, by this statement of interest, to work on anything
someone (or a large enough collection of "someones") considers
relevant at a given point in time?

Someone earlier raised the point that the description of the space
in which we work (the IETF's scope) may not be the description of
the work that we collectively take on -- I guess I'm wondering whether
we can characterize the subset in some constructive way, so that
it will be clearer to us, and to communities trying to work with
us, what we should/will put energy into at a given point in time.

Leslie.

Fred Baker wrote:
> Let me try to say all that succinctly:
> 
>    "The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a forum for the
>    discussion and development of white papers and specifications for
>    the engineering issues of the Internet. This discussion builds on
>    hard lessons learned in research and operational environments, and
>    necessarily includes speakers from those communities. Vendors offer
>    wisdom on what can be built and made to work in their products, and
>    may bring customer or market issues whose owners cannot or will not
>    bring themselves.
> 
>    The intended goal is well characterized as 'community memory' -
>    written observations and wisdom as well as protocols and operational
>    procedures defined - to enable the datagram internet to scalably
>    deliver relevant services in transit and edge networks."
> 
> Is that on target? Is it too many words?

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:31 -0500 (EST)

I propose the following as a mission statement for the IETF:

IETF is a technical protocol standards organization.  Its principal goals 
are:

        To create open, technical standards that will be useful to and 
adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large.

        To identify current and emerging protocol requirements, and share 
best practices.

        To facliitate the participation of all affected and interested
parties and develop consensus.

        To solicit the input of a diverse group of interests and 
participants in the formation of protocol standards.

        To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that believes 
it has been treated unfairly has the right to appeal.

        To work with suppliers, consortia, and other standards bodies to 
develop consensus and facilitate interoperability.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:19 -0500 (EST)

> >    may bring customer or market issues whose owners cannot or will not

This misses a great deal.  I think one needs to consider the Mission of
other standards organizations such as IEEE, ANSI, the ITU, and The Open
Group, to name a few examples:

The mission of The Open Group is to drive the creation of Boundaryless 
Information Flow achieved by:

    * Working with customers to capture, understand and address current 
and emerging requirements, establish policies, and share best practices;
    * Working with suppliers, consortia and standards bodies to develop 
consensus and facilitate interoperability, to evolve and integrate 
specifications and open source technologies;
    * Offering a comprehensive set of services to enhance the operational 
efficiency of consortia; and
    * Developing and operating the industry's premier certification 
service and encouraging procurement of certified products.

IEEE Vision and Mission

VISION

To advance global prosperity by fostering technological innovation, 
enabling members' careers and promoting community world-wide.

MISSION

The IEEE promotes the engineering process of creating, developing, 
integrating, sharing, and applying knowledge about electro and information 
technologies and sciences for the benefit of humanity and the profession.

ANSI MISSION

To enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. 
quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus 
standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their 
integrity

Cardinal Principals

Openness. Any materially affected and interested party has the ability to 
participate.

Balance. The standards development process should have a balance of 
interests and participants from diverse interest categories shall be 
sought.

Due Process. All objections shall have an attempt made towards their 
resolution. Interests who believe they have been treated unfairly shall 
have a right to appeal.

Consensus. More than a majority, but not necessarily unanimity.

> >    deliver relevant services in transit and edge networks."

I don't think it has anything to do with "community memory", nor is it 
limited to the 'datagram internet', nor is it even limited to services in 
'transit and edge netorks'. Quite obviously, it is useful to peering and 
private and other kinds of networks, but the types of networks aren't 
important. What is important is that the stardards are techincally useful, 
and publicly deliberated.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:59:43 -0800

Thanks Dean - this collection was actually quite informative!

             Harald

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:59:44 -0800

> it has been treated unfairly has the right to appeal.

I'd prefer this:

	To use a fair and open process, even in the resolution of disputes,
	in which any person with a claim of unfair treatment has an avenue
	for appeal.

I don't much like the idea of artificial legal entities, i.e. political 
parties, having "rights".  It's a minor nit, I know— call me a radical 
hippie, if you must.

-- 
j h woodyatt <[email-masked]>

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:36:25 -0800

> 	in which any person with a claim of unfair treatment has an avenue

Drat.  Scratch out the characters ", even" in the above.  That was bad 
logic on my part.  Apologies all around.  I'll shut up now.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:47:10 -0500 (EST)

How about this:

 To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
 believes it has been treated unfairly has the opportunity to appeal.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:20:07 -0800 (PST)

% How about this:
% 
%  To provide a fair and open process whereby any party that
%  believes it has been treated unfairly has the opportunity to appeal.

	...over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

	Methinks this needs a bounds check.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:56:56 -0500

I do not think "appeals" belongs in our mission and vision statement.  They 
are a mechanism to achieve openness and accountability, not the purpose of 
the organzation.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 01:47 PM 2/5/2004 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > believes

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:03:49 +1100

much as i hate "me too" messages, i think joel makes a good point.

cheers,
gja

> are a mechanism to achieve openness and accountability, not the purpose of

	[..]
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:52:46 -0500

>adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large.

Well put, a concise statement of mission.  I suggest that the rest (almost) 
addresses how to do that; a principles of operation statement which could 
be a separate statement.  To clearly separate the two I suggest adding 
"current practices" to the above.  For example:

         To create open technical standards and identify best practices 
that are useful to and
adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large.

Other changes, dropped comma after open and changed "will be" to "are".  [I 
think that strengthens the statement.]

Ed

>develop consensus and facilitate interoperability.

Ed Levinson  47 Clive Street  Metuchen, NJ 08840  USA
Coach & Technology Consultant
T: +1 732 494 1606  F: +1 732 494 4495
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.ResultsLifeCoaching.com