Subject: Re: [Architecture-discuss] Mobility and multi-homing

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:44:19 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>

    > For the IETF to do any kind of *effective* changes to the architecture,
    > there must be architectural control at some point in the organization.
    > .. there seems to be a unfillable vacuum in architectural leadership.
    > To make significant architectural progress in *any* direction, we need
    > to first resolve the question of who is providing this leadership and
    > under what authorization.

Tony, while I happen to basically agree with you, my view is that it's Not My
Problem, and I think this list should ignore it.

The IETF and the IAB do indeed need to work out how to do this, but that's
something the IETF and IAB are going to have to tackle. (And no doubt there
wil be those aplenty who don't understand that "architecture committee" is an
oxymoron; they need to go read 'Mythical Man-Month' Chapter 4, "Aristocracy,
Democracy, and System Design".) I have less than zero interest in getting
involved in making that happen; somebody else (the IAB, etc) is going to have
to fight that battle.

    > The basic premise of the post-Kobe debacle is that the IAB does not
    > have the authority to make architectural decisions that are at odds
    > with popular opinion. Until something happens to alter that premise, we
    > will continue to run in circles.

One of two things will happen. Either i) the IETF community will accept that
a system needs an architectural compass, and committees (especially of the
whole) cannot provide that, or ii) the system will become even more screwed
up by feature-cancer than it already is, and eventually the IETF's
stewardship will be so obviously broken that something else will replace it.

I fail to see why I should tilt at that windmill (again! :-) when I can just
sit back and wait for natural forces to do that job for me (while I amuse
myself with more pleasant pastimes). "We are a lighthouse. Your call." 

	Noel

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

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:02:00 -0700

> myself with more pleasant pastimes). "We are a lighthouse. Your call."

Noel,

With all due respect, if everyone in the IETF sits back and waits for  
change to happen, then change is not going to happen.

Further, if you are truly waiting for change, why are you bothering  
to comment here?  While I understand that you don't want to hit your  
head on the wall again, I suspect that you are not just amusing  
yourself.

Tony

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:40:21 +0200

>Problem, and I think this list should ignore it.

may be should we accept this leadership is the users demand (the IETF 
is the specialisation of some experimenters+developpers+users, it 
should not be a split). Its legitimacy is that users decide anyway, 
at the end (but a wasted time). The difficulty is to understand it 
and then to get it translated into Charters. This is where IMHO 
architectural models can dramatically help as a common reference. May 
be the IRTF too?

I am afraid saying that "this list should ignore" this leadership, 
leads it to find other ways to see its needs addressed (other SSDOs 
and grassroots process). NAT, VoIP, Grid, MP3, etc. are examples.

Listening to the user demand in an appropriate way, rather than 
filtering it as Stephane suggests it, permits to hear new ideas (they 
are usually singly voiced). The user grassroots process (political, 
commercial) is not necessarily the best process to welcome and 
nurture architectural R&D. See IAB RFC 3869.

jfc