Subject: Re: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-modern-paradigm-01.txt> (Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards) to Informational RFC

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:42:25 -0700

At 10:08 29-09-2012, IAB Chair wrote:
>This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on an 
>Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards.
>
>The document is being considered for publication 
>as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, 
>and is available for inspection here:

It was previously mentioned as an individual 
comment that "this document is not being 
considered for publication as an RFC (at least 
within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not 
apply".  The IETF Chair has stated that there is 
rough consensus [1] for signing the 
Affirmation.  The press releases [2][3][4] have 
been issued.  If the modern paradigm was used as 
a measure, there wasn't broad consensus to sign 
the Affirmation.  What's the use of this IETF-wide Call?

The press release was a "fait accompli".  It 
would have been awkward to raise a concern about 
it.  This document could be qualified as 
spineless.  The document only highlights that the 
IAB has consulted the IETF community after the fact.

Several years ago the following [5] was put 
forward as requirements that enable open standards (this is non-IETF material):

  1. Open Meeting - all may participate in the standards development process.

  2. Consensus - all interests are discussed and 
agreement found, no domination.

  3. Due Process - balloting and an appeals 
process may be used to find resolution.

  4. Open IPR - how holders of IPR related to the 
standard make available their IPR.

  5. One World - same standard for the same capability, world-wide.

  6. Open Change - all changes are presented and 
agreed in a forum supporting the
     five requirements above.

  7. Open Documents - committee drafts and 
completed standards documents are easily
     available for implementation and use.

  8. Open Interface - supports proprietary advantage (implementation); each
     interface is not hidden or controlled 
(implementation); each interface of the
     implementation supports migration (use).

  9. Open Access - objective conformance 
mechanisms for implementation testing and
     user evaluation.

  10. On-going Support - standards are supported 
until user interest ceases rather
      than when implementer interest declines.

It was mentioned that "some recognized SSOs 
(e.g., ITU) and many consortia (e.g., W3C) have a 
pay-to-become-a-member policy".  To be fair, it 
can also be argued that the IETF has a pay policy 
for meetings.  Surprisingly, the IETF does not 
meet Requirement 2 as the "Area Directors have a 
dictatorial level of control over the 
standardization decisions in their area".  It is 
interesting to note that there are different interpretations of "consensus".

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74753.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74758.html
3. http://www.w3.org/2012/08/openstand.html.en
4. http://standards.ieee.org/news/2012/openstand.html
5. Credits to Ken Krechmer