Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin () digitalink com>]

Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> Vince Wolodkin supposedly said:
> > Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > > P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is
> > > > a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation
> > > > that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the
> > > > control of RIPE and it is located in London, England.
> > >
> > > fiction.
> > >
> > > there are some root name servers.
> > >
> > > then there are some pirates who are trying to coin the "confederation" term.
> >
> > Mr Vixie,
> >
> > I realize your exasperation with certain elements that have arisen in
> > this "new age" of the internet.  Many of them ARE in it for the money.
> > Of course, you realize, that this was bound to happen.  Any successful
> > non-profit venture will ultimately have people trying to make money off
> > of it.  It's not illegal, though piracy is.
> >
> > While you disagree with the "confederation" ideas that Mr. Fleming
> > espouses, calling he and others pirates is rather ridiculous.  If you
> > were involved in an IETF proceeding and someone presented an alternate
> > idea, would you call them pirates?
>
> Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most
> people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within
> the IETF process.  If they want to change things and follow the procedure
> that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince
> people of the validity of their ideas.
>
> If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established
> system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and
> fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for
> years, then they are indeed pirates.  I would like to point out that going
> through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted.  More
> ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted.

The problem here being that there was NO parallel track to the IETF for
policy issues prior to RFC2026.  Also, most of these people saw work on
draft-postel et al go to waste as it was "pulled" from the RFC track and
basically made co-opted by the ISOC.  They could have chosen to go the
RFC2026 BCP method, instead they went their own way, ignoring Best
Current Practice.

> > It's time you faced it, though you and others may have put a great deal
> > of work into building what the internet has become, so have many
> > others.  It doesn't mean that it belongs to you.  It doesn't mean that
> > people who are trying to build something now are pirates.
>
> The grandstanders have chosen to work outside of the IETF process and are
> trying to build something.  There are a couple of reasons why they could
> want to do it that way:

As I noted, the IAHC is working outside of the IETF process also.

> 1.  They are impatient and don't want to work through established channels.

Read this as they don't trust existing channels because they have seen
the process pulled from existing channels previously.

> 2.  They don't believe working through the established channels is
>     legitimate.

Existing channels are legitimate as long as they are used.

> 3.  They have tried and their ideas were rejected.

Well, their ideas weren't rejected through an IETF process.  The IAHC
documents are being created OUTSIDE the RFC process, outside of Best
Current Practices.

> If 1. then they need to learn some patients and cooperation.

Always a good idea for everyone.

> If 2. then we disagree and will not agree for the forseeable future.

As I said, existing channels are legitimate, they just aren't being used
ALL of the time.

> If 3. then either:
>    a) they were right and everyone else was wrong and in a few months or
>       years it will be clear.
>    b) they have some other motive, whether it be greed or glory or power or
>       something else I don't know.
>
> If a) then we will have to see.
> If b) which is what I suspect, then I don't repect the motives and once
>       again I doubt we will agree anytime in the future.

I agree with you, I just don't feel it is fair to characterize people as
pirates who are attempting to build a viable(??) alternative to the
present system.  Perhaps they should approach this through the
"Experimental" RFC process, would that be the proper approach?

> > I really can't tell why you are so upset about all of this.  I am
> > guessing that you don't want to see the internet fall to ruins because a
> > bunch of newcomers with "radical" ideas want to change things.  You may
> > even be a little bit afraid that some of them might succeed.  But why is
> > their input LESS valuable than yours, and who are you to make this
> > judgement?
>
> All people who come to the IETF, come as individuals and their opinions
> start out counting the same.  As with all things, your actions and words
> over the years tend to add or subtract to the value people place on them.
> People tend to respect people who have made positive contributions or have
> strong technical arguements, and ignore people who make no contributions or
> whose ideas lack technical merit.
>
> > I'll probably get flamed off the planet for siding with the
> > "interlopers", perhaps cries of "burn the witch" will follow me.  Then
> > again, wasn't there a time when those who thought that the earth orbited
> > the sun killed for their blasphemy?
>
> A completely pointless statement to your arguement.  It is easy to label
> yourself the martyr and how everyone else is wrong, but it doesn't win any
> points.
>
> > Take a good look in the mirror and decide, do you want to work with
> > others or do you want to dictate to others?  Then please let us know, we
> > may need to ignore you in the future.
>
> Paul and everyone else who does work in the IETF work constantly with
> others to keep the Internet functioning.  If you expect to work with people
> then you need to step up and join the effort.  The feeling I get is that
> since you don't like the structure of the team you want to run off and form
> your own team and call the other people antisocial for not abandoning the
> current process and embracing yours.

You have mistaken me for someone else.  You assume that since I defend
their right to attempt to build competing systems that I am one of
"them".  I am not advocating that anyone dump or embrace anything,
merely that keeping an open mind is a good idea.

> If you want to effect change then step up and try to do it legitimately
> instead of trying to do it with press releases.  Even Microsoft tried to
> bully the IETF process and had tough times because of it.  Now they send
> numerous people to the IETF and contribute to the effort.

Once again, I think you have mistaken me with someone else.  Besides,
press releases ARE a valid method of shaping public opinion and getting
users to test your system.  Perhaps if draft-postel had never been
pulled out of legitimate channels none of this would have happened.

> > Vince Wolodkin
>
> --->  Phil

Vince
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -