Subject: RE: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:59:32 -0500

Todd writes...

> What this also does is places a real-world value on a
> gettng an RFC however which is further complicated by WG Chairs 
> who get to decide what is advanced as a RFC - 

I, too, will probably regret plunging in here, but...

Informational and Experimental RFCs are commonly issued by the
RFC Editor, based on individual Internet Draft submissions that 
have not been through any working group.  What I think you mean
is a Standards Track RFC.  And, yes, those documents that attain
Standards status must, and should, IMHO, go through the IETF 
process of WG consensus and IESG approval.

Someone once said "the nice thing about standards is that we
have so many of them to choose from".  They were being sarcastic,
of course.  Forming Internet Community standards on any and every
possible solution to a problem is not to be desired.  It creates
confusion and fractionalization, and does not lead to 
interoperable solutions.

> bluntly because of this I think that
> their actions are or may be tantamount to restraint of trade.

I don't agree.  If your competing solution is so very much
superior to the standardized one, then you may let the market
decide on its success.  If its not so very much superior, then
the benefit of interoperable solutions, based on the standard,
probably outweighs whatever [marginal] technical benefit is to
be obtained in your competing solution. 

Sometimes less is more...

Regards,

Dave Nelson

(giving my personal opinion, not that of my employer)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:42:09 -0800

RE: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nelson, David 
  To: 'todd glassey' 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:59 PM
  Subject: RE: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

  Todd writes... 

  Informational and Experimental RFCs are commonly issued by the 
  RFC Editor, based on individual Internet Draft submissions that 
  have not been through any working group.  

  BCP'S TOO

  What I think you mean 
  is a Standards Track RFC.  

  YES - SORRY FOR NOT BEING CLEARER. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE COMMENTARY.

  And, yes, those documents that attain 
  Standards status must, and should, IMHO, go through the IETF 
  process of WG consensus and IESG approval. 

  AGREED

  FIRST OFF, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE IESG SHOULD BLANKET APPROVE EACH STANDARD - although EVEN THEY HAVE THE ISSUE TO DEAL WITH REGARDING WHETHER THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY "NO" TO ANYTHING THAT HAS MET THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BEING ADVANCED. MY GUT LEVEL RESPONSE IS THAT THE IESG NEEDS TO PUT IN PLACE A MORE FORMAL PROCESS THEN WHAT IS THERE BECUASE THE EXISTING ONE IS CAPABLE OF TOO MUCH IMPROPRIETY AT NUMEROUS LEVELS, IMHO.

  decide on its success.  

  FINE - BUT WHEN WHEN VC'S WILL NOT INVEST IN SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE A PARTICULAR WG WILL NOT ALLOW IT TO BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION, THEN THE IETF'S ACTIONS ARE CLEARLY RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

  If its not so very much superior, then 
  the benefit of interoperable solutions, based on the standard, 
  probably outweighs whatever [marginal] technical benefit is to 
  be obtained in your competing solution. 

  BUT THAT'S THE POINT - IF THE OTHER POTBNTIAL SOLUTION IS DENIED ANY TIMEIN THE SUN BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ORG WG CHAIRS SAY THEY WANT ONLY ONE PROTOCOL OUT THERE, THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM SINCE THEIR PARENT ORG, THE IETF, EMBRACES COMPETEING AND MULTIPLE METHODS OF DOING THE SAME THING IN ANY NUMBER OF OTHER WORKING GROUPS.

  Regards, 

  Dave Nelson