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

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:50:01 +0200

Hi Christian,

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

Why would that be?  Experimental protocols / documents can be thought
of as pre-standards, things which we think are good, but want to make
sure don't cause any trouble to the Internet.  Much of the work on
TCP in the past several years falls into that category.

Also, BCPs can be considered a form of standards & many informational
documents.  Many SDOs do make requirement documents, etc. - so I don't
see a problem with Information documents as well.

> 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.

The IETF does not perform certification or enforcement activities,
so its pretty clear that IETF is not necessarily a "normative" 
SDO.

John

.
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, 15 Dec 2003 13:03:28 -0500

[email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [Christian Huitema wrote:]
> 
>> concentrates on producing solid specifications for Internet
>> protocol & services, and on obtaining consensus among participants,
>> so the consensus drives voluntary adoption.

   Christian used the word "normative" properly here; but IMHO this
word mostly serves to obfuscate, and should be avoided.

> so its pretty clear that IETF is not necessarily a "normative" 

   John, alas, is not using "normative" correctly. "Normative" has
nothing to do with "enforcement", and only the loosest connection to
"certification".

] normative adj
] 1: relating to or dealing with norms; "normative discipline";
]    "normative samples"
] 2: (grammar) giving directives or rules; "prescriptive grammar is
]    concerned with norms of or rules for correct usage"
]    [syn: prescriptive] [ant: descriptive]
] 3: based on or prescribing a norm or standard; "normative grammar"
]    [syn: prescriptive]
] 4: dealing with or based on norms; "a normative judgment"

   As I said, "normative" serves mostly to obfuscate. ;^)

   IMHO, "normative" is all about presuming the existence of a "norm"
for whatever noun it is being applied to; and it serves to indicate
that the issue under discussion is whether something fits within that
"norm". When "normative" is applied in the context of "standards", it
indicates that there is one "norm", and that is "prescribed" as the
single best way.

   Thus, one _could_ use "normative" with respect to TCP/IP, but it
would have to include all the tweaks which one claims "should" be
applied in practice. Historically, IETF has not done that.

   Thus, IMHO, Christian is stating that our best "standards" are
exactly those that do not presume the existence of a "norm", but
instead lay out in detail how to accomplish a basic structure (like
TCP) and/or how to accomplish optional extensions to it -- and trust
voluntary consensus to accomplish adoption of the best options.

   (I don't claim to be able to state Christian's ideas better than
he can; but I do believe removal of the word "normative" helps. ;^)

--
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