Subject: RE: [newtrk] Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:20:46 -0800

> While updating RFC 2026, better also to make the second step 
> and say that "having the IETF continue to do one thing 
> according to the RFCs and the rest of the world doing 
> something else is not a good thing either for the Internet 
> (what ever the "Internet" may then mean since IETF says it is 
> the adherence to its Internet documents).

A bad thing for whom? It is certainly bad for the IETF but the world is
probably choosing the course it has because that is what is best for it.

The IETF may define the Internet any way it chooses. The world will choose
its own definition.

> Then may be someone will consider publishing the "Internet 
> Book" were the consequences of the valid standards and RFC 
> would be maintained in an orderly maner and translated into 
> the various working languages of the world. This would solve 
> the obsolesence issue: if an RFC is not quoted in the 
> Internet Book and no one protests for one year or more, it 
> becomes historic.

Something of the sort has already happened. O'Rielly has been effectively
performing that role for a very long time.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:12:06 -0500

> probably choosing the course it has because that is what is best for 

not clear.  blind faith in the market is misplaced.  at least in the 
short term, the market uses a hill-climbing strategy.  it's good for 
finding local maxima, not good for finding optimal solutions.

> The IETF may define the Internet any way it chooses. The world will 
> choose its own definition.

The IETF's job is to provide guidance.  "the world" will not always 
follow IETF's guidance.  this is as it should be, because IETF cannot 
possibly anticipate everything that "the world" needs, nor is IETF 
infallible.

IETF's job is _not_ to reflect what the world does.  however there are 
some ways that IETF needs to respond to what the world does:

1. if IETF's guidance was wrong, IETF's job is to improve its guidance
2. if IETF failed to meet some legitimate need in a technically sane 
fashion, IETF's job is to provide a sane way of meeting that need and 
if possible to provide a reasonable transition strategy
3. when "the world" insists on doing something that is shortsighted 
(e.g. NATs), IETF can provide useful guidance of the form "if you must 
do this harmful thing, here is how you can minimize the harm" (but it 
needs to be clearly labeled as such)
4. even if IETF provided the wisest possible guidance, there are times 
when "the world" would not accept it.  from this point of view, IETF's 
job is to supply guidance that (a) "the world" will accept, and (b) 
provides a path that allows "the world" to move to a saner state when 
it is ready to do so.

Keith

.