Subject: [newtrk] Fw: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III (from main IETF mailing list)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:48:42 -0600

Should I be worried?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
To: "Franck Martin" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Kolis"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff III
>
> By and large, compliance with Internet standards is voluntary and
> self-motivated; this requires (allows?) a very different
organizational
> structure.  However, in passing S. 877, the US Congress has for the
first
> time referenced "Internet Engineering Task Force Standards" (Sec
11.2) in a
> law.  For now, it is only as a suggestion to the FTC for rulemaking,
not
> directly mandating compliance, but if this is a sign of things to
come...

I may be thinking dark and gloomy thoughts (why? it's a beautiful day
outside in Dallas, and Life Is Good), but I'm imagining legislative
assistants trying to figure out what "standard SIP" is, when we don't
even run "standard TCP" on the Internet today (thinking STD 007?
doesn't even include Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery, much less SACK or
timestamps).

I would REALLY like to have a story in place, that allows us to call a
significant portion of what we've produced and widely deployed
"standards", if laws are going to point to "IETF standards".

Can somebody please either tell me I'm worrying about nothing, or what
our next step should be?

Spencer

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:10:01 -0500

Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> organizational structure.  However, in passing S. 877, the
>> US Congress has for the first time referenced "Internet Engineering
>> Task Force Standards" (Sec 11.2) in a law.  For now, it is only as
>> a suggestion to the FTC for rulemaking, not directly mandating
>> compliance, but if this is a sign of things to come...
> 

   (I seem to be having diffculty finding time for any IETF stuff. Sorry!)

   Harald has been asking for a while, "Is the IETF primarily a standards
organization?", and I have been waiting on the sidelines for someone to
say, "Hell, No!"

   I guess it's up to me:

   Hell, No, Harald!

   We're the Internet Engineering Task Force. That means, first of all,
that we're a task force, not an established organization. Second, it
means that our work is engineering, not standards-setting. Third, our
engineering work is focused on Internet -- or to use the old standby:
our engineering is intended to make the 'Net work.

   Somewhere along the way, a lot of people seem to have lost track of
this, and figured they could use the IETF to endorse standards which
will benefit them as individuals and companies (despite the fact that
companies are ineligible for any participation whatsoever in IETF).
And, not surprisingly, we're finding the IETF just doesn't do that great
a job of standards-setting.

   We produce "Requests for Comments", not standards -- although someone
seems to have decided to classify RFCs as informational or standards-
track. But they're still "requests" for "comments", fundamentally
unsuited for service as standards.

   If they were intended as "standards", surely it would be _someone's_
job to follow-up on the inevitable misunderstandings (or downright
misinterpretations) of the "standards". We don't.

   Getting back to Spencer: You need to remember Sturgeon's Law". "90%
of everything is junk" applies equally to the US Congress. (Some would
say Congress has outdone itself and gone way past 90%; but that's an
argument for another day.)

   Personally, I don't worry much about having a story (whether or not
it's consistent) about what fraction of RFCs are "standards" in the
sense that US regulatory bodies could enforce them. I see a _lot_ of
difficulty agreeing on the list, and very little benefit from enlisting
federal bureaucrats to assist our cause.

   So, Spencer, perhaps you _are_ worring about nothing. If not, I
really don't know _what_ our next step should be. I see no hope of
ever reaching meaningful consensus on a list of "real" "standards"
among the published RFCs.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:19:58 -0800

John,

JL>    Hell, No, Harald!

By way of providing some dialectic to your views, in the hope of
developing meaningful debate, let me counter your note with

           "Hell, yes!"

The details you offer in support of your "no" are semantic quibbles.

The modern IETF has been in operation for roughly 15 years.  It has
participation and formal management, and it produces specifications
involving public consensus. By any reasonable measure, that makes it a
standards group.

Standards groups use all sorts of language to describe themselves and
their products.  None of this alters the nature of what they do.

It does not matter whether the term "organization" or "task force" or
"union" or whatever is used. It does not matter whether the documents
that are produced are called "recommendations" or "standards" or "rfc".

The substantive point you offer is that we primarily do "engineering".
My own view is that that stopped being the core of our work, quite a few
years ago. The real engineering is done by one or a few individuals.

Larger bodies of folk do review and refinement. This is extremely
important, but it's not engineering. The instant a larger group, like a
working group, does the overall engineering task, we get the same result
any other design-by-committee effort gets.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:01:27 -0500

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [John Leslie wrote:]

   Always a good start...

> The details you offer in support of your "no" are semantic quibbles.

   Semantic, yes; quibbles, no.

   Perhaps the true answer to Spencer Dawkins' question ("what our next
step should be?") is "Change our name"; but so long as we call ourselves
the "Internet Engineering Task Force" it's not "quibbling" to discuss
the meaning that title conveys.

   (Clearly I believe that sort of work, which I'm sure Dave agrees
was once done by the IETF, still has value.)

> involving public consensus. By any reasonable measure, that makes it a

   But, not necessarily "primarily" a standards group...

> that are produced are called "recommendations" or "standards" or "rfc".

   These titles for standards documents convey different meanings. It
is foolish arrogance to claim there is no difference between them.

   A "standard" is something to measure against. A "recommendation" is
something bearing some stamp of authority and endorsing some particular
action. A "rfc" conveys little meaning unless we agree it is "still" a
"request for comments" -- which we may no longer agree to...

> The substantive point you offer is that we primarily do "engineering".

   Quibble here: I claim to "perceive" that "engineering" is our
primary purpose -- I intended no claim about what we actually do.

> years ago. The real engineering is done by one or a few individuals.

   Beware! Dave tried to sneak in the term "real engineering".

   However much one may agree with Dave that what larger groups do should
not be called "engineering", it is a cheap debater's trick to infer there's
something "un-real" about it.

> important, but it's not engineering.

   Considered by themselves, these two sentences deserve a reply. Larger
groups do many things, not just "review" and "refinement". Review, IMHO,
is a necessary part of modern engineering. (YMMV.) Refinement, IMHO, is
still engineering.

   So, this is a genuine semantic argument between Dave and myself.
Live with it!

   The point being, there's nothing dishonest about referring to "review"
and "refinement" as "engineering"; and a reasonable person could easily
carry away the meaning that "review and refinement" of Internet protocols
is an inherent purpose of an "Internet Engineering Task Force".

   (I do not choose to list other things larger groups do -- yet...)

> The instant a larger group, like a working group, does the overall
> engineering task, we get the same result any other design-by-committee
> effort gets.

   I freely agree there are "design-by-committee" problems in IETF.
Sometimes, I agree, this is a problem. Our traditional approach has been
to go with the "rough consensus and running code". Running code is _not_
designed by committees: it's almost always easier to adjust the RFC to
match the code; and our tradition is to do so once the running code
gets enough distribution to look like a workable solution to the
engineering problem.

   To summarize Dave's differences with me:

- Dave thinks we stopped doing "engineering" years ago. I don't.

- Dave things however poorly we do standards, it's our rightful task
  today. I don't.

- Dave thinks the actual purpose of a group is unrelated to its name.
  I think that's confusing and unwise.

- Dave thinks that committee designs are inherently bad. I don't.

   It's time someone else weighed in on these issues...