Re: net.stewards [Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>
>
> > Up to a point, but there are limits to what we can do.
> >
> > We can request that the RFC Editor not publish things we 
> > think are damaging. The IESG does this a few times a year. 
> > Similarly, we can request that IANA not register things we 
> > think are damaging, or at least to label them as potentially 
> > dangerous.
> >
> > We can publish screeds about damaging practices. The IAB does 
> > this a few times a year.
> >
> > We can try to develop non-damaging solutions for requirements 
> > where the easy solutions are damaging, and we can try to 
> > repair our own damage (as HTTP 1.1 repairs HTTP 1.0).
> >
> > We can try to ensure that the Internet can 'route around 
> > damage' - that's one of the main reasons for defending the 
> > e2e principle, for example.
> >
> > But we can't prevent people from deploying solutions that we 
> > didn't develop, and we shouldn't even try to IMHO.
>
>
> Mao was wrong, the root of power is not coercion, it is persuasion.
>
> Sure the IETF can pursuade IANA not to register a code point. But if
> that happens it only makes things worse. There is nothing that can be
> done to prevent unregistered use and no real disadvantage to doing so as
> nobody will want to accept an official registration polluted by prior
> use.

All true. That's why I wrote "or at least to label them as potentially
dangerous."
> I do not see an argument being made that XXXX is worse than the
> alternatives that can be used. Instead there is a NIH argument that
> XXXX is in competition with YYYY.

I am not making any comment about specific technologies.

> I think it is important to distinguish net.stewardship from special
> pleading trying to use the vast political influence of the IETF as
> described by Brian to force consumers to adopt the anointed solution
> over the deployed.

Sigh. That's exactly my point; our stewardship role is really limited
to advocacy and to providing better altermatives. I don't see where you
can find "special pleading", "vast political influence", "force"
or "anointed" in what I wrote. I think we would do well to avoid
polemic language on this list.

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf