Subject: One standard IETF vs. the Many Standard IETF...

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:27:12 -0700

Jorge I want to make a formal observation on the IETF's processes. There is
an issue with them being open and fair and I believe that this is something
that you need to advise your clients on.

The point I want to bring out was illustrated by a comment by Steve Kent
where he painted the IETF as an organization that would prefer only one
standard per type for anything it does, but a place that left that
fundamentally left that up to the WG, and I want to disagree with that. That
policy is wrong and contrary to the official policies of the IETF and its
processes in place.

My reason for saying that is that the IETF insists that it is not
incompetent and so then one has to assume that it is reasonably intelligent
so we can assume it understands in human terms what the words fair and open
mean.

From that constraint one would then summarize that any organization that
refuses to allow more than one standard of any specific type **must** have a
formal process for a new initiative's coming in and being vetted such that
they can be compared as a robust protocol next to the Standard. The idea is
comparing apples to apples, right?

So let me point out that because the IETF has no formal method of one
protocol formally challenging another for "the one standard's slot", then
anytime there is a single protocol done, it is 'the standard for life'.
Because of this, what I  think this really means in the real world is that
to insure that all protocols are given the same fair opportunities, no IETF
working group can ever refuse anything. And the reason for this boils down
to that none of them, nor the IETF as a whole has any formal method of one
protocol formally challenging another.

 So in the interest of being open and fair there is no other possible choice
but to allow any number of competitive standards into the mix. Otherwise
there is no ongoing genesis, Oh and I don't know what you call that but I
call it restraint of trade, since the Standard is critical to many
businesses product development exercises.

Todd

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:25:12 -0400

Todd,
I must disagree with the relevance of this post, your reasoning, and your 
conclusion.
Even if what you said were accurate, it has no relevance to describing our 
current IPR policy.  In fact, I apologize to the chairs for responding.

Mostly however, my disagreement is with two implicit steps that you have 
taken repeatedly.
1) You assert that your definition of "open and fair" is the correct 
definition.  You then proceed to make assertions about what is necessary to 
be open and fair.  I will presume that these conclusions follow from your 
definition.  However, they do not follow for all definitions, and they do 
not follow for what I think are are commonly accepted defintions or for my 
understanding of what the IETF is after when it tries to be open and fair.
2) You assert that if a process is not explicitly stated, written down, and 
formal, then it does not exist.  We have many processes that exist without 
being formal.  In fact, much of our success relies on our being informal in 
certain regards and relying on judgement rather than formal rules to 
address needs.  I suspect that you believe that formal rules are 
necessary.  But my experience and belief differs.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 07:07:46 -0700

Joel this answer of yours paints an accurate picture of you I think. And its
funny how you  mouth the words of the "good network anarchist"...
and bluntly I am unimpressed.

my responses to your retort below  - and a direct statement as to why you
are wrong regarding this matter.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: One standard IETF vs. the Many Standard IETF...

> current IPR policy.  In fact, I apologize to the chairs for responding.

yes it does. The term FAIR means that the same policies must be applied to
all and that means that words like SHOULD in the disclosure process need to
be removed and replaced by MUST's... So it is exactly relevant to Governance
and to IP issues so it was warranted. I am sorry you don't see the
connection.

> Mostly however, my disagreement is with two implicit steps that you have

get real - how so?

> definition.

No I state that by comparison the only real definition of the terms "Open"
is  in comparison to people like the OpenSource community, which the IETF
is more and more like everyday. The problem with FAIR is that it needs no
formal definition here or delimiting. The words FAIR mean that the exact
same processes and opportunities are accorded to ALL participants, and in
this last thing the IETF is woefully lacking.

If you would like to delimit "FAIR" some more - then perhaps you would do so
in an official document.

> You then proceed to make assertions about what is necessary to
> definition.

Thanks - I thought the solutions or logic was pretty simple.

> However, they do not follow for all definitions, and they do

Then what specifically do you think those words mean ?

> formal, then it does not exist.

No - What I insist on is that NO UNDOCUMENTED PROCESSES are used anywhere in
this standards operations process.

> We have many processes that exist without
> being formal.

Which is how the IETF is so thoroughly abused by people with money and the
ability to spend millions on its standards... or if this is not true I would
like to see them retort -

> In fact, much of our success relies on our being informal in
> address needs.

BS - Much of the IETF's success has to do with a critical mass concept and
nothing more. The IETF is at this time the tool of any number of players
that can financially invest in and maintain enough WG membership so they
can control those WG's and force votes that way.

> I suspect that you believe that formal rules are

So you think its better to let WG Chair's create their own rules and apply
them wherever they want? Especially with regard to the IPR requirements...

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 07:28:31 -0700

My apologies Joel, this retort of mine was a little acerbic and that was
probably not appropriate, but the content of the message stands and is true.
Again my apologies for the tone of this if you find it abusive.

todd