Subject: RE: RFC2026 and the terms fair and open

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:52:45 -0400

Todd,

> >      What this means is that ultimately
> >      since todayÆs WGÆs only support the ôconstituencyö of one standard
> >      initiative per type,
> >
> > Assuming "type" is to be read broadly, that's not true.  IP Storage is
> > a counterexample within one WG (3 very different protocols for carrying
> > block storage traffic over TCP/IP in one WG),
> 
> becuase those WG Chair and AD's allowed this, but it is not the rule, its
> the exception.

Let's see, for web security, both SSL and a higher level mechanism were
worked on, CDI seemed to be chasing everything under the sun in its domain,
ISSLL worked on every layer 2 media for which interest could be generated,
diffserv started up after intserv, ... how many "exceptions" will it take
to convince you that your "rule" is wrong?

> > and there are other cases
> > in which separate WGs have been formed for technologies that compete in
the
> > marketplace (a recent example is WGs for both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs).
> 
> David there is no consistency the AD's and WG Chairs may bring in whatever
> they want and many have used this to shut down various initiatives. The
> issue here is this fair or even reasonable? and I think not.

I strongly disagree with where I think this is going - using "lack of
consistency"
to prevent exercise of best technical judgment by ADs and WG Chairs.

A requirement on the IETF to pursue any technical effort brought to it
without
major change will have two very undesirable consequences:
- It will become essentially impossible to kill "bad ideas".  Some people
	still don't understand basic Internet principles like congestion
control
	and have to be told "no".
- It will become essentially impossible to merge or partially merge related
	efforts that ought to be pursued as a single protocol or via having
	key (sub)components in common.
To the extent that this is a proposal to restrain the exercise of the best
technical judgment of ADs and WG Chairs, I am strongly opposed.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:41:27 -0400

Mr. Glassey: You are, once again, off topic for the IPR WG.  You have
been warned about this repeatedly.  Please stop, NOW.

Everybody else: if you feel that you must continue this thread, kindly
take it somewhere else, not to the IPR WG mailing list.  Thanks.

--Rob (with IPR WG co-chair hat on)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:12:16 -0700

David - the IETF does not get to judge what is and is not cool technology.
That makes it a Guild or Cooperative.

A Standards Agency that claims to be "Open and Fair" means that there are no
hidden or arbitrary processes. It also means that it does not apply one set
of rules for one effort and waive or change that set of rules for its
'favored' efforts. And I believe that there are many here who have something
to fear from an investigation into how the IETF does what it does.

Now is the entire IETF corrupt? No way, and has the IETF done some really
incredible things? - You Bet, but the time is here for the rules to apply to
all and to apply to all fairly and this means that many of the Fiefdoms that
have been built now need to be merged into the Kingdom seamlessly and that
means that the local Dukes therein are no longer in control.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: RFC2026 and the terms fair and open

Todd,

the

Thanks,
--David