Subject: In IETF We Trust

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 05:27:30 +0000

Hello:

I am not sure about to whom I should post this, and therefore:

                  "To Whom It May Concern". 

I am writing in regard of the introduction of BCP-9[(c)1996 ISOC]:
   "The Internet Standards process is an activity of the 
    Internet Society that is organized and managed on behalf 
    of the Internet community by the Internet Architecture 
    Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group 
    (IESG)."

------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "The Internet Standard process is an activity of the Internet
    Society"; A cross check with ISOC's Mission Statement
    <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/> [(c) 1999 ISOC]:

      "To assure the beneficial, open evolution of the global 
       Internet and its related internetworking technologies 
       through leadership in standards, issues, and education."

    Basically, this must be a good idea, and I do not have
    problem with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  "that is organized and managed"

     Thank you very much for this effort, ISOC: I appreciate this! 
     (note: I am not an ISOC member).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
3.   "on behalf of the Internet community"

     I assume that the "Internet community" in a broad sense is 
     "anyone who uses or supports the Internet". Therefore, it 
     also include anyone's mom who uses the Internet. However, 
     there is a problem with the "on behalf" part. The issue here 
     is not whether anyone's mom is interested or not in the 
     Internet Standard Process, but the consequence of "acting 
     on behalf of anyone else" itself.

     First, the "on behalf" assertion above has been deliberately 
     as well as openly(TE) written(TE) in a document. I assume 
     that the ISOC really mean it, and it is the truth, the whole 
     truth, and nothing but the truth.

     Second, by acting "on behalf", there should be a way for
     "the Internet community" for monitoring about what has been
     done "on behalf" of the community. I assume that 
     "IETF-ANNOUNCE" plays the role of "informing the Internet 
     community", i.e. anyone who would like to follow the 
     Internet, should regularly browse:

          <http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html>. 

     Therefore, anything that is not announced in 
     "IETF-ANNOUNCE", means that it is not announced to the 
     "Internet Community"  (e.g. appointment of the NOMCOM 
     chair, appointment of the RFC-ED, etc.).

     Third, there is a need for a feedback mechanism from the
     Internet community in regard of the Internet Standard 
     Process. The closest "publicly recorded feedback mechanism" 
     that I know is this "IETF" list. Writing a feedback to the  
     IAB or IESG or ISOC itself nowadays has been shown not
     effective. Apparently, they think that they have right 
     remain silent/ ignoring the Internet community. Therefore, 
     if this IETF list is not appropriate for posting public 
     feedbacks, there should be created a new one. See also
     <http://www.egroups.com/> for hassle free solutions
     (cf. the ol' Major Domo).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  "by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet 
     Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."

     Apparently, "IETF" is a generic name for "IAB", "IESG",
     "Working Groups", "IANA", "RFC-ED", et.al. No wonder,
     that until now, the IETF has not been chartered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line:

There is a need for a publicly recorded feedback mechanism for
the Internet Standard Process. Whether there will be a follow
up or not to a feedback is not discussed here.

tabe,

-- 
Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825
*OK,so you run the internet?THAT DON'T IMPRESS ME MUCH!Shania Twain

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 02:46:14 -0400

> up or not to a feedback is not discussed here.

Trust me.  We get plenty of feedback here on the IETF mailing list.

Also, remember that an *incredible* fraction (probably 95% or more)
of the "Internet community" neither knows of the IETF/ISOC nor cares.
They just know that the Web "just works", and e-mail attachments
"just work".

And there's a very good case that this is as it should be.

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 02:46:14 -0400

Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:08:07 +0200

>    Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group 

Your parsing is erroneous.
It should be parsed as

(The Internet Standards process is an activity 
    (of the Internet Society)
    that is 
    (organized and managed 
           (on behalf of the Internet community)
     by 
     (the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet
      Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
     )
)

It is the IAB and the IESG that does the management, not ISOC.

Your assertion that this list is one feedback mechanism from the
Internet community to the standards process is true.
It is not the only one.

Your assertion

>Writing a feedback to the 
>remain silent/ ignoring the Internet community. 

seems to make two assumptions that I believe are false:

1) That messages that are not answered do not constitute feedback
2) That not replying to some messages constitutes ignoring the
   Internet community.

I have one message with your source address in my IESG folder
(which ends in April 1999) and one in my IAB folder (which starts
at the same time).
Both were read at the time.

                   Harald T. Alvestrand

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:08:07 +0200

Your assertion

                   Harald T. Alvestrand