Subject: Re: IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:01:00 -0700

Dear Internet Architecture Board,
At 16:12 22-03-2011, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>I am glad to see the plenary has already inspired some good 
>discussion before it has even taken place. I only worry that the 
>more dissent is vented in this thread, the more the actually plenary 
>will be a let-down, but...

I share your concern about that. :-)

>help to make them better. Websockets will exist, in one form of 
>another, the question is whether they will have the benefit of IETF 
>review, of our understanding of transports, of NATs, of security, of 
>all the things that make sockets hard. By addressing itself to these 
>emerging application architectures, the IETF can find new areas of 
>relevance and potentially attract new participants and ideas to our community.

The question is whether people will understand the benefits of IETF 
review and consider the input from other areas.  It is better if 
people bring ideas to the IETF out of their own choosing instead of 
doing so reluctantly.

>The purpose of this plenary is not to say that this web architecture 
>should be the exclusive focus of the Apps Area, nor to delineate 
>some specific set of work that should
>  be replaced by something else. That's why, in our plan for this, 
> we didn't adopt a point/counterpoint format - I don't really think 
> web applications and standalone

The topic that the IAB selected might be viewed as thought provoking.

>   We do hope that the plenary will help people to see this new work 
> as a space where the IETF can make a meaningful contribution and 
> not, say, as "an abomination."

That would be one of the reactions to expect at the mic line.  It is 
somewhat foolhardy of the IAB to expect a meaningful contribution in 
a discussion about RFC 3093.

>If, in light of all this, people feel that emergency 
>course-correction is required in order for this plenary to be useful 
>to the community, don't hesitate to raise any specific ideas with me 
>or the IAB as a whole, and we'll see what we can do in our remaining 
>couple days here.

The technical plenary could be moved to Friday. :-)

Instead of an emergency course-correction, I suggest that the IAB 
publishes its minutes.

I'll include some text from draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00 
which provides a basis for this discussion.

In Section 1:

   "The younger generation of Internet users today has a very
    different Internet experience than users 10 years ago."

This fashions the design choices.

In Section 2:

   "This attitude is not particularly surprising given that many
    standardization participants in the real-time communication area look
    back to a regime that exactly follows a highly standardised eco-
    system, namely the telecommunication business."

Does the IAB have an opinion about adopting such a model?

Regards,
-sm