nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 01:31:38 -0400
On 10/31/22 9:27 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:1. What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, because there is no formal voting. 3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of relationships). It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one position for decades.I do not see how it can be called totalitarian given the IETF Nomcom appointment and recall mechanisms. Admittedly it is not full on Sortition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) but it is just one level of indirection from Sortition. (See https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/08/20/indirection-the-unsung-hero-of-software-engineering/?sh=2cc673587f47)
Donald helped setup this Nomcom system, based upon his experience in the F&SF community WorldCon. Credit where credit is due, and our thanks! Randy Bush has also had some cogent thoughts over the years. Once upon a time, I'd proposed that we have some minimum eligibility requirements, such as contributing at least 10,000 lines of code, and/or *operational* experience. Certain IESG members objected (who stuck around for many years). Once upon a time, IETF did have formal hums. That went by the wayside with IPSec. Photuris won the hum (overwhelmingly). We had multiple interoperable international independent implementations. Then Cisco issued a press release that they were supporting the US NSA proposal. (Money is thought to have changed hands.) The IESG followed. Something similar happened with IPv6. Cisco favored a design where only they had the hardware mechanism for high speed forwarding. So we're stuck with 128-bit addresses and separate ASNs. Again with high speed fiber (Sonet/SDH). The IESG overrode the existing RFC with multiple independent implementations in favor of an unneeded extra convolution that only those few companies with their own fabs could produce. So that ATT/Lucent could sell lower speed tier fractional links. Smaller innovative companies went out of business. Of course, many of the behemoths that used the standards process to suppress competitors via regulatory arbitrage eventually went out of business too. Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.
Current thread:
- Re: jon postel, (continued)
- Re: jon postel Dave Taht (Oct 17)
- Re: jon postel Miles Fidelman (Oct 18)
- Re: jon postel michael brooks - ESC (Oct 18)
- Re: jon postel John Curran (Oct 17)
- Re: jon postel Greg Skinner via NANOG (Oct 17)
- Re: jon postel Noah (Oct 30)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Oct 30)
- RE: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Oct 30)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Donald Eastlake (Oct 31)
- RE: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Oct 31)
- Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC William Allen Simpson (Oct 31)
- Re: jon postel Jay Hennigan (Oct 16)