Subject: alternative to the spam filtering of the IETF's users

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:16:58 +0100

On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:
>your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing. You 
>managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should have just 
>wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ... I'm sure that 
>there's a lot of other people like me who would appreciate you actually 
>saying something next time. Try actually saying something next time 
>instead of waving your hands and saying "he's wrong."
>training my spam filters on you,

This is typical of 50% of the reactions (no more :-) I privately receive 
and would like to positively build on it.

This member actually perfectly understood the message I want to convey: the 
reason why Harald is right about IPv6 is the IETF disregard for the users 
ways. While what builds a network is not the way it is designed but the way 
it is collectively used.

When IETF Members spam filter users, they spam filter those who vote for 
politicians, do not buy IPv6 and make their living. They may make 
themselves happy but they fail their mission, waste their time and the time 
of billions. There should be another solution.

I accept I send hundreds of words: I wish I could avoid it and I have a 
proposition to spare you that. But in a globally users hostile arena, I am 
one of the very few users who survives your ways of thinking and working, 
and I never know what will hit who and when. Smoke screening suggestions of 
mine is also a way to give them a chance: this boring work pays back and 
has some real impact. Not as much as I wish, and this I would also want to 
change it.

My target is not like most of you that it works, it is smart, it follows 
the IETF core values or it makes a name of yourself. My target is that the 
final deliverable is societally, economically and politically the best and 
the most quickly globally accepted solution. IPv6, IDNA , spam, security 
... show that this is not always the case.

In the case of IPv6, this debate has brought all the elements to understand 
the problem, to treat it properly and to fix it for a quick take over of 
IPv6. I do not care if my contribution pleased or not: I brought to some 
third party analyzing the whole threat some more elements necessary to 
conclude  I brought them in a users manner: in saying "this is not what I 
want" and "this is what I want", what you may understand as "you are wrong" 
when you do not want/plan to deliver what I want. This is in a non 
construed basis, because I am only representing some users. Because I am 
user and not a standardizer. Because it would prevent suggestions to be 
picked as belonging to an objected global picture. But sometimes I detail 
solutions users might put together, often with an entirely different 
vision, what makes them disregarded until they happen a few long years later.

I said that I had an alternative solution. That solution is a Users Task 
Force to organize as an IETF entity. Its purpose is to be consulted in the 
course of the Internet standard process. Every user will be able to come 
and discuss needs and demands (not solutions). It will be open to consumer 
organizations, governments, corporations. This exists on a very specific 
issue which is the gTLD as the ICANN GNSO - and is blurred by political and 
opinion chitchat. Users can spend 24/366 a day on the internet and never 
come across a deliverable of a gTLD. They are confronted all the day long 
to IETF deliverables. I am an example of the "user pollution" of the IETF 
and the mail I respond to is a perfect example both of the users and of the 
IETF problems.

We are reorganizing the IETF. Let add a paragraph about a Network Usage 
Task Force and the NUTS (Network Usage Technical Specifications) expected 
from it, as a guidance similar to the requests to IAB. And let stop talking 
about "trolls" (everyone is someone else's troll): let just ask them to 
join the NUTF and let benefit this way from everyone's input. But in a 
construed way, in being sure it is the real market consensual demand. When 
IAB calls on Gov's funding (RFC 3869) it is typical to see that the 
priorities are IETF priorities, not the world's priorities.

Multilingualism is probably to be the leading issue in the years to come. 
This is acknowledged quite everywhere now. Yet RFC 3869 does not even 
allude to it. This can be understood as the impact on the network 
architecture may be dramatic and the perceived requirements so 
contradictory and complex to understand in a predominant ASCII culture. But 
to get Gov's financial sponsoring, IAB has to talk about what they are 
interested to fund. This dead-end situation would be solved more easily if 
there is were a forum where Govs and all may discuss, understand and 
present a construed and maintained demand.

I have worked for that in the @large field and I am ready to help setting 
this up. I know how organize it and to fund it (through what we need : 
market studies and questionnaires add-ons to be sold to manufacturers and 
press which also makes an perfect reach-out program: to listen to the 
people for what is to be their daily life tools).

Otherwise, this will be organized by the ITU (they already have it by Govs 
and major Telcos only  - and now is the time it is decided through the 
WSIS). ITU will progressively take IANA functions. Standards will 
increasingly be designed at the ITU-T. And IPv6, IDNA, spam and critical 
risks will have been the X.500 of the IETF. We cannot avoid to work with 
the ITU because they gather the main users of the IETF deliverables. But we 
can do it in our terms and in terms more acceptable to the users. So 
everything works better, what ITU is also interested in.

This means that the users demand is considered at the source of the IETF 
thinking, not as an ITU-T filtering of its deliverables. This also means 
that we want an ITU I-Sector to interface and support the 
Internet/Intelligent Continuity world and plan for a Content and Service 
oriented NGN, not only smart bandwidth. ITU-T is a low layers oriented 
organization, we it at its proper place and to prevent confusion.

IPv6 is a good example: the IETF deliverable is OK (again Harald is right). 
But the main deliverable for the user is a worldwide, Gov accepted, 
numbering plan structure. IPv6 is built to be quite transparent to 
numbering plan structure. So the ITU-T is the blocking factor. Should that 
have been discussed and identified by the NUTF:: instead of "get[ing] the 
hell out of the way", ITU-I or ICANN (as now IANA is an ICANN function 
disputed by ITU) would have discussed in a joint conference with ITU-T a 
long ago and permitted the IETF to continue working on a real life 
universal IPv6.

Or, I will continue :-)

jfc

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

---

From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:19:10 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>> your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing. 
>> You managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should 
>> have just wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ... 
>> I'm sure that there's a lot of other people like me who would 
>> appreciate you actually saying something next time. Try actually 
>> saying something next time instead of waving your hands and saying 
>> "he's wrong."

I think the yahoo comment is still (mostly) valid.  Can you/anyone
tell me, is all of this IPng, NAT, etc., mail leading anywhere,
or is it just ranting and venting?  If you and others can build
something positive out of it (even if it's just Cisco releasing
some box that supports IPv6 like Jeroen(?) requested), so be it,
but so far it's more like, "I told you so."  "No, I told *you*
so."

> This member actually perfectly understood the message I want to convey: 
> the reason why Harald is right about IPv6 is the IETF disregard for the 
> users ways. While what builds a network is not the way it is designed 
> but the way it is collectively used.
> 
> themselves happy but they fail their mission, waste their time and the 
> time of billions. There should be another solution.
> 
> proposition to spare you that. But in a globally users hostile arena, I 
> am one of the very few users who survives your ways of thinking and 
> working, and I never know what will hit who and when. Smoke screening 
> suggestions of mine is also a way to give them a chance: this boring 
> work pays back and has some real impact. Not as much as I wish, and this 
> I would also want to change it.
> 
> the IETF core values or it makes a name of yourself. My target is that 
> the final deliverable is societally, economically and politically the 
> best and the most quickly globally accepted solution. IPv6, IDNA , spam, 
> security ... show that this is not always the case.
> 
> In the case of IPv6, this debate has brought all the elements to 
> understand the problem, to treat it properly and to fix it for a quick 
> take over of IPv6. I do not care if my contribution pleased or not: I 
> brought to some third party analyzing the whole threat some more 
> elements necessary to conclude  I brought them in a users manner: in 
> saying "this is not what I want" and "this is what I want", what you may 
> understand as "you are wrong" when you do not want/plan to deliver what 
> I want. This is in a non construed basis, because I am only representing 
> some users. Because I am user and not a standardizer. Because it would 
> prevent suggestions to be picked as belonging to an objected global 
> picture. But sometimes I detail solutions users might put together, 
> often with an entirely different vision, what makes them disregarded 
> until they happen a few long years later.
> 
> Force to organize as an IETF entity. Its purpose is to be consulted in 
> the course of the Internet standard process. Every user will be able to 
> come and discuss needs and demands (not solutions). It will be open to 
> consumer organizations, governments, corporations. This exists on a very 
> specific issue which is the gTLD as the ICANN GNSO - and is blurred by 
> political and opinion chitchat. Users can spend 24/366 a day on the 
> internet and never come across a deliverable of a gTLD. They are 
> confronted all the day long to IETF deliverables. I am an example of the 
> "user pollution" of the IETF and the mail I respond to is a perfect 
> example both of the users and of the IETF problems.
> 
> Task Force and the NUTS (Network Usage Technical Specifications) 
> expected from it, as a guidance similar to the requests to IAB. And let 
> stop talking about "trolls" (everyone is someone else's troll): let just 
> ask them to join the NUTF and let benefit this way from everyone's 
> input. But in a construed way, in being sure it is the real market 
> consensual demand. When IAB calls on Gov's funding (RFC 3869) it is 
> typical to see that the priorities are IETF priorities, not the world's 
> priorities.
> 
> Multilingualism is probably to be the leading issue in the years to 
> come. This is acknowledged quite everywhere now. Yet RFC 3869 does not 
> even allude to it. This can be understood as the impact on the network 
> contradictory and complex to understand in a predominant ASCII culture. 
> But to get Gov's financial sponsoring, IAB has to talk about what they 
> are interested to fund. This dead-end situation would be solved more 
> easily if there is were a forum where Govs and all may discuss, 
> understand and present a construed and maintained demand.
> 
> I have worked for that in the @large field and I am ready to help 
> setting this up. I know how organize it and to fund it (through what we 
> need : market studies and questionnaires add-ons to be sold to 
> manufacturers and press which also makes an perfect reach-out program: 
> to listen to the people for what is to be their daily life tools).
> 
> Otherwise, this will be organized by the ITU (they already have it by 
> Govs and major Telcos only  - and now is the time it is decided through 
> the WSIS). ITU will progressively take IANA functions. Standards will 
> the ITU because they gather the main users of the IETF deliverables. But 
> we can do it in our terms and in terms more acceptable to the users. So 
> IPv6 is a good example: the IETF deliverable is OK (again Harald is 
> right). But the main deliverable for the user is a worldwide, Gov 
> accepted, numbering plan structure. IPv6 is built to be quite 
> transparent to numbering plan structure. So the ITU-T is the blocking 
> factor. Should that have been discussed and identified by the NUTF:: 
> instead of "get[ing] the hell out of the way", ITU-I or ICANN (as now 
> IANA is an ICANN function disputed by ITU) would have discussed in a 
> joint conference with ITU-T a long ago and permitted the IETF to 
> continue working on a real life universal IPv6.
> 
> Or, I will continue :-)

-- 
~Randy

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:52:41 +0100

Jefsey,

why don't you go yell at the IPv6 Forum - <http://www.ipv6forum.org/>?

It seems far more likely that you will get the IPv6 forum to be effective 
by contributing than that you will get the IETF to change its ways by 
long-winded messages on the IETF list.

               Harald

--On 23. november 2004 15:16 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> accepted, numbering plan structure. IPv6 is built to be quite transparent
> to numbering plan structure. So the ITU-T is the blocking factor. Should
> that have been discussed and identified by the NUTF:: instead of
> "get[ing] the hell out of the way", ITU-I or ICANN (as now IANA is an
> ICANN function disputed by ITU) would have discussed in a joint
> conference with ITU-T a long ago and permitted the IETF to continue
> working on a real life universal IPv6.
>
> Or, I will continue :-)

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:44:35 +0100

Harald,
Thank you for your advice. As says the quote you kept, IPv6 is only part of 
a global issue where the key point is organizing the numbering plan, what 
IETF is not devised for, and ICANN does not consider. I am not interested 
in stardizing but in making sure the IETF deliverables fit the needs and 
demands of the usage I am interested and competent in. In the Internet 
standard process this may be obtained through BCP drafts and during the WG 
charter writing and during the document reviews.

These two occasions miss a way for usage inputs to be seriously debated. 
This leaves three possibilties:
1. the short time I can spend at the only place where a common inter-WG 
culture may develop
2. external actions based upon the inputs/reactions obtained there
3. organize a user representation entity able to carry more weight during 
the review period and writing BCP

(1) helps me work on (2) but make me hesitate about the load of (3).
Take care.
jfc