Subject: RE: [newtrk] "Is IETF Primarily a Standards Organization?"

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:33:58 -0800

> I disagree.  If we were to decide, that our primary function were to
> produce standards, then we would use that as an argument to avoid
> producing other useful kinds of documents.  Even if we decided that
our
> primary function were to produce documents (which is a lot closer to
> the truth) then it would serve to limit ourselves far beyond what we
do
> now.  We should define our primary function in terms of our intent,
not
> in terms of our visible products.

Keith has a strong point here. If our primary function was standards, we
would not produce informational and experimental documents.

In fact, the IETF thrives when it is not "normative", when it
concentrates on producing solid specifications for Internet protocol &
services, and on obtaining consensus among participants, so the
consensus drives voluntary adoption.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:51:55 -0500

> would not produce informational and experimental documents.

I don't know about that.  Other standards groups - ones that even
have "standards" in their names, like ETSI - produce documents that
are not protocol standards.  For example, in the case of ETSI they
are explicit in distinguishing between "reports" and "specifications."
What may be different here is that ETSI reports tend to exist in
support of their specifications, while ours are often essentially
stand-alone, but I'm not sure that's sufficient to say we aren't
primarily a standards body.

Melinda

.