Subject: Please note this update: IETF mission statement

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 22:50:07 -0700

I have tried to incorporate the extremely useful feedback I got on this 
list and from the Korea plenary.

I hope this is ready to send to IETF-wide Last Call.
This is your chance to get at it early :-)

Take care,

                Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 30. april 2004 15:44 -0400
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: A Mission Statement for the IETF
	Author(s)	: H. Alvestrand
	Filename	: draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt
	Pages		: 16
	Date		: 2004-4-30
	
This memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the
   terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission
   statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a
   mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led
   to this point.

   The appendix giving the debate is intended to be deleted when the RFC
   is published; it is only given here as a reference and a thank-you
   note

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
message.   You can also visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce  to change your
subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:37 -0400
List-Id: <i-d-announce.ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: A Mission Statement for the IETF
	Author(s)	: H. Alvestrand
	Filename	: draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt
	Pages		: 16
	Date		: 2004-4-30
	
This memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the
   terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission
   statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a
   mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led
   to this point.

   The appendix giving the debate is intended to be deleted when the RFC
   is published; it is only given here as a reference and a thank-you
   note

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:54:07 +0930

Hi Harald,

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:50:07 -0700
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have tried to incorporate the extremely useful feedback I got
> on this list and from the Korea plenary.
> 

I haven't been all that involved in the IETF to have a strong
opinion on the draft. That being said, it sounds good.

Regarding deleting the appendix, I'd suggest not doing so, as I
think it fits the "Relevant" clause, namely :

"Note that it does not mean "correct" or "positive" - a
report of an experiment that failed, or a specification that
clearly says why you should not use it in a given situation,
can be highly relevant - for deciding what NOT to do."

I think including the possible mission statements that weren't
adequate will help further clarify the one that is.

If the appendix is retained, and it isn't too much effort,
expanded explanations of why the other mission statement
candidates weren't satisfactory or adequate may be of some value.

Regards,
Mark.

>    statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF
>    needs a mission statement, and tries to capture some of the
>    debate that led to this point.
> 
> 
>    The appendix giving the debate is intended to be deleted
>    when the RFC is published; it is only given here as a
>    reference and a thank-you note
> 
> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a
> message to [email-masked] with the word
> unsubscribe in the body of the message.   You can also visit
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce  to change
> your subscription settings.
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with
> the username"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address.
> After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> 	"FILE
> 	/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-01.txt".
> 	
> 	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use
> 	this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before
> 	the "FILE" command.  To decode the response(s), you will
> 	need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. 
> 	Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different
> 	behavior, especially when dealing with"multipart" MIME
> 	messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into
> 	multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail
> reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII
> version of the Internet-Draft.
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:54:07 +0930

Hi Harald,

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400

> opinion on the draft. That being said, it sounds good.

   Harald (et al) should be commended for this work.

> adequate will help further clarify the one that is.

   I must disagree with Mark and agree with Harald. Inclusion of
Appendix A in _this_ document would detract from the sense of closure,
and give the impresssion that the issues it mentions are still open.

> candidates weren't satisfactory or adequate may be of some value.
 
  I'd be happy to see a separate document describing the process of
reaching this statement of mission.

====
A Few Nits:

4.1
" 
" We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user
" empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate
" with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little
" to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the
" technology that we choose to create.

   The language here is very good -- in fact, commendable.

   But the aim is a trifle off.

   Whether we "embrace" "decentralized control" is orthogonal to our
mission. We have designed protocols which work well in the presence of
decentralized control, not because we "embrace" anything, but because
we believed it to be impossible to reach the global scope of today's
Internet _without_ decentralized control. I quite agree that it belongs
in our mission statement.

   On the other hand, "edge-user empowerment" is a different animal.
It is _not_ necessary to the existence of the Internet. And it invites
misinterpretation. There's limited consensus today what the "edge"
means. And "empowerment", though it _means_ delegation towards the
edge, is used in so many different ways today that it's semantically
empty.

   I suggest eliminating "edge-user empowerment". What I believe
Harald (et al) meant by this is to extend the "decentralized control"
out to the very edge, enabling users at the (loosely-defined) edge
to have sufficient control of their communications to explore new
uses for the Internet. I think we can trust users to work in that
direction without needing a statement here.

   With this in mind, a possible wording would be:

+ The concept of decentralized control, initially necessary in order
+ to grow the Internet to global scale, has become a core value to
+ the IETF community. Similarly, the concept of sharing resources
+ without letting ourselves get bogged down in accounting for them
+ has become a core value. We will continue to choose to create
+ technologies that resonate with our core values.

" In attempting to resolve this question, perhaps the fairest balance
" is struck by this formulation: "protocols and practices for which
" secure and scalable implementations are expected to have wide
" deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the
" infrastructure of the Internet."

   It's not clear what "question" is being discussed. I'm pretty sure
Harald means the question of whether particular work is included
within the scope of the IETF mission; but this has gotten lost in
context.

   Thus I suggest rewording, perhaps something like:

+ In deciding whether particular work is "in-scope" for the IETF, we
+ try to concentrate on "protocols and practices for which secure and
+ scalable implementations are expected to have wide deployment and
+ interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the infrastructure
+ of the Internet."

4.2
" 
" The IETF has traditionally been a community for both experimentation
" with things that are not fully understood, standardization of
" protocols for which some understanding has been reached, and
" publication of (and refinement of) protocols originally specified
" outside the IETF process.

   Alas, "both" can only connect _two_ choices, and we have at least
three here. I suggest eliminating the word "both".

" In deciding whether or not these activities should be done within the
" IETF, one should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the
" potential benefit to the Internet - an experiment that yields
" information about the fact that an approach is not viable might be as
" worthy of publication as a standard that is technically competent,
" but only useful in a few special cases.

   "As worthy of publication as a standard" leads the reader to stumble
over _why_ the failed experiment should be published "as a standard".
(Hey, I warned you I'm picking nits!)

   I suggest some shuffling, perhaps like:

+ The type of activity shouldn't drive the decision of whether an
+ activity belongs within the IETF - an Informational RFC describing
+ a failed experiment, showing why that approach is not viable, might
+ be of greater benefit to the Internet than a Standards-track RFC
+ useful in only a few special cases.

====
6. Acknowledgments

   Harald asks:
" 
" Given how incomplete this section necessarily is, should it just say
" "None mentioned, none forgotten"?

   No, it shouldn't (though the temptation is strong). An apology to
those you forgot to mention is appropriate, but you must try to come
up with a list of the most important contributors.

   The list in the draft looks good to me.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 23:05:26 +0930

Hi John, Harald,

On Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400

>    Harald (et al) should be commended for this work.

Completely agree.

> 
> > Regarding deleting the appendix, I'd suggest not doing so, as
> > I think it fits the "Relevant" clause, namely :
> > 
> > I think including the possible mission statements that
> > weren't adequate will help further clarify the one that is.
> 
> Appendix A in _this_ document would detract from the sense of
> closure, and give the impresssion that the issues it mentions
> are still open.
> 

I'd be happy with this approach. I think sometimes preserving the
"whys" can be as useful as the "whats". ("Why ?" is one of my
favourite questions :-) )

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400

====
A Few Nits:

4.1
" 

4.2
" 

====
6. Acknowledgments

   Harald asks:
"

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 23:05:26 +0930

Hi John, Harald,

Completely agree.

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 17:57:30 +0200

Dear Harald,
1. Very good work. Extremely clear and useful.

>This is your chance to get at it early :-)

2. But I am very embarrassed to understand how "a large, heterogeneous 
collection of interconnected systems that can be used for communication of 
many different types between any interested parties connected to it", can 
be anything else than value-neutral.

This alights the constant disagreement I have with many here. Until now I 
considered there were only two visions of the Internet.
1. the very clear 47 USC 230 (f)(1) definition: "The term 'Internet' means 
the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal 
interoperable packet switched data networks." This means a network of 
machines for the entire globality of the world.
2. a consensual metastructure of names, addresses and protocols to support 
numeric relations between its participating users and user agents. This 
means a network of users/usages, matching the all the needs the globe over.

In both cases I fully understand what "making the Internet work better" may 
mean.
1. to better match the state of the art, to better resist to hackers and to 
better grow in size or in technology support
2. to better fulfill the user needs, to permit be surer datacoms, to strive 
to support everyone for everything they need.
Timely, safe and scalable. I can live with both understandings as they say 
the same thing to a technology oriented body: "the technology must perform 
better". In this I agree with Fred Baker's, Dean Anderson's ... 
propositions or even with the one proposed if what follows was removed.

In the proposed draft, there is an in between dogmatic vision of the 
internet which is _not_ technically rooted (you underline it):
<quote>
We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment 
to openness and fairness.  We embrace technical concepts such as 
decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, 
because those concepts resonate with the core values of
the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology 
that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create.
</quote>

This means:
- there is an IETF community
- it has core values
- best supporting these values has priority to best supporting the 
technology efficiency (first understanding) or the best possible usage 
(second understanding).
This makes IETF a Church.

- it dedicates itself to a subset of the internet system it makes the 
"Internet" (boarders unclear).
This makes the IETF a sect (I certainly do not want to sound outrageous 
here, but calling a cat a baby cat, helps to more clearly identify the 
implied meaning).

I have no objection to the principle of such an approach, once it is 
clearly published as you do it now. To the contrary, to some extent I 
welcome it because it clarifies a lot of issues. In particular why IAB 
never published an architectural model of the internet: this model is 
actually made of the core values of the IETF community. This explains why 
IETF does not need market studies, why users have not their say. Why USG 
develops its own internet elsewhere. Why RFC cannot be updated: one does 
not update a catechism. It is not technical engineering but applied 
evangelization.

I would not even have objections to all this, if my long, reviewable and 
reality based analysis matched the (by nature) non negotiable IETF core 
values and their resonating technical consequences. But I technically 
disagree with them, for a deeper personal core value: to make a good job 
out of my own life.

- I understand what is an open protocol and I do not see much of them in 
here. I do not know what a fair electron or an honest byte can be. You know 
my formula on this: "I do not expect my telephone to be democratic, I 
expect it to work". Sorry to be IETF agnostic. This lead me to the Coliseum 
several times already.

- from my humble analysis, and accepting many graduated exceptions, I 
consider decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and resource sharing 
as outdated concepts of the 60s (I entered network operations in 69 and 
never used them before meeting the Internet four years ago). I am used and 
I made my life dedicated to R&D of distributed global control, user's full 
concerted granular empowerment, subsidiarity, numeric continuity relations 
and interaction, hybrid networks, etc.

Obviously I may be wrong, but this creed regidity (integrism?),
- makes the IETF technically unreliable when the life of millions and the 
world's economy depend on the internet solutions (with small "i")
- should make the proposed goal to be corrected as "The goal of the IETF is 
to make the Internet work better along the IETF core values".

Now, a general comment: all this seems inconsistent or even opposed the 
rest of the texts of this excellent draft of yours.
Thank you for the clarification about the IETF Church I had not fully 
understood yet. But I am low IQ.
jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 17:57:30 +0200

Dear Harald,

This means:

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:13:14 -0400 (EDT)

Nothing like jumping in late and editing the first sentence, but here
goes:

> The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.

This is phrased a bit awkwardly, and implies that the Internet isn't
working all that well now. What about:

  "The goal of the IETF is to ensure that the Internet continues to
   work effectively."

And a few paragraphs later, to tighten it up a bit:

>    Open process - that any interested participant can in fact
                    ^^^^                                ^^^^^^^
                    omit                                omit

>       participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his
>       or her voice heard on the issue. Part of this principle is our
>       commitment to making our documents, our WG mailing lists, our
>       attendance lists and our meeting minutes publicly available on the
>       Net.
>
>
>    Technical competence - that the issues on which the IETF produces its
                            ^^^^
                            omit

>       documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to
>       speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to
>       technically competent input from any source.
>       Technical competence also means that we expect IETF output to be
>       designed to sound network engineering principles - this is also
>       often referred to as "engineering quality".
>
>
>    Volunteer Core - that our participants and our leadership are people
                      ^^^^
                      omit

>       who come to the IETF because they want to work for the IETF's
>       purposes.
>
>
>
>    Rough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the
>       combined engineering judgement of our participants and our
>       real-world experience in implementing and deploying our
>       specifications.
>
>
>    Protocol ownership - that when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol
                          ^^^^
                          omit

>       or function, it accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the
>       protocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on
>       the Internet. Conversely, that when the IETF is not responsible
                                  ^^^^
                                  omit

>       for a protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control
>       over it, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet.
>

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:13:14 -0400 (EDT)

^^^^                                ^^^^^^^
                    omit                                omit

                            ^^^^
                            omit

                      ^^^^
                      omit

                          ^^^^
                          omit

                                  ^^^^
                                  omit

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 09:36:13 -0700

>   "The goal of the IETF is to ensure that the Internet continues to

actually the previous version had "The goal of the IETF is to make the 
Internet work" - I was chastised for lack of ambition on the IETF's behalf!

I actually think the Internet works quite well, in many aspects, but 
there's lots of room for improvement - or there would be no spam in my 
mailbox, and I would know by the touch of a button whether or not I could 
set up a video call to you to discuss these matters.....

but I like being ambitious enough to expect the IETF to help it improve!

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 09:36:13 -0700

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:39:56 +0200

I had to quickly explain IETF to political decision makers. I think I did 
not betray it in saying:
"The IETF is a place where technical consensus among coopetition can be 
reached in the areas of Internet legacy IP protocols, system and vision, 
with the participation of anyone motivated".
jfc