stev@VAX.FTP.COM (05/29/90)
>I have my doubts about Roy's interpretation too. However one should >also note the anonymous critique of the governance of the Internet >that was published in Goodfellow's newsletter. Participation in the >IAB and the IETF can't be read as 100% support. >Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility well, i am not on the IAB. i am an active participant in the IETF though. i am currently the PPP working group chair. while i do not support the actions of the organizations 100%, i do believe the process is the best one out there, and i also believe that one person, with well thought out arguements, and careful planning, can make a diffrence. i can also say that the IAB/IETF/IESG has never tried to shut me up, they has asked me to talk about something later, but always at reasonable times. they also have called on me many times at the IETF meetings to let me say my piece. it may not have always been in their best interest, and i am sure there have been times they wished i didnt open my mouth, but they do seem to put up with people with disenting opinions if these people are willing to work in the system to fix the problems they see. could be worse, i am told that the ISO people have to submit their statements in written form. they would get to miss my booming voice wafting out over the lecture hall. . . . :) stev knowles IETF PPP working group chair ftp software stev@ftp.com "Maybe they are all Bozo's on this bus, but they are *our* clowns, not someone elses!"
karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (05/30/90)
I have to agree with Stev Knowles. The IAB/IETF is the *only* standards body that actually seems to work. I've never seen an important technical decision made by anyone other than the members of the working group in charge of a given topic, and anyone with a technical interest is free to join and contribute. Perhaps the most important thing about the IAB is its "fly before buy" policy. For a protocol to reach internet standard status, it must first be implemented and widely used, and there must be a substantial body of operational experience. If only other standards organizations could follow this principle the world would be a far better place. Phil
schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") (05/30/90)
Phil, Your almost correct.... > Perhaps the most important thing about the IAB is its "fly before buy" > policy. For a protocol to reach internet standard status, it must first be > implemented and widely used, and there must be a substantial body of > perational experience. CMOT was elevated to DIS without the above. Marty
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (05/30/90)
In article <9005300234.AA07597@psi.com>, schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") writes: > CMOT was elevated to DIS without the above. It was my understanding that this was done by the ISO, not the IAB. The IAB has no authority to designate things DIS or IS. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation
stev@VAX.FTP.COM (05/31/90)
>CMOT was elevated to DIS without the above. >Marty after the abuse they got, i *doubt* that will ever happen again. i never said it was perfect. they *do* do some stupid things. but, then again, so do i . . . . . .
schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") (05/31/90)
> It was my understanding that this was done by the ISO, not the IAB. The > IAB has no authority to designate things DIS or IS. No, the "Internet" has a somewhat parallel concept with Draft Internet Standards (DIS) Internet Standards (IS) Which is outlined in one of the RFC's, the process of standardization is somewhat obscure. Marty
karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (06/03/90)
Yes, I should modify my earlier statement as follows: the IAB *usually* follows a "fly before buy" policy regarding protocol standardization. The fact that political pressure from the OSI camp has occasionally corrupted the process doesn't make this principle any less important. Indeed it seems that several other missteps within the Internet community can be traced to this same cause. The use of ASN.1 within SNMP, for example. Phil
schoff@PSI.COM ("Martin Lee Schoffstall") (06/03/90)
> Indeed it seems > that several other missteps within the Internet community can be traced to > this same cause. The use of ASN.1 within SNMP, for example. Whoa! ASN.1 was used in SGMP the "experimental" predecessor of SNMP which NO ONE from the OSI camp had any influence on, PERIOD. Four people who's healthy skeptism of ISO technology and politics are world known (you heard me in Stockholm) needed a format and chose ASN.1 within the SGMP concept and proved its workability. The next generation SNMP kept the design and tradition and use of ASN.1. ASN.1 was a good choice, NOTHING has proven this a bad choice. About every six months there seems to be a little chinese fire drill, it would appear initated by some of the iconic figures of the Internet, who talk about performance problems with X,Y,Z areas of SNMP/ASN.1. All of them have been proven false, and without merit. SGMP and SNMP went through a very thorough process, of implementation, review, implementation, review, implementation, review. Lots and lots of that good stuff called peer review. If there was a technical problem of that size it would have died on the vine. Marty