RE: Opportunistic Tunneling

[<Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>]

Hello,

I think it is evident that the economical considerations are out of IETF's scope. IETF is a global organization and even different countries have different economical systems. In addition, different companies use different models for their businesses.

Of course, in the v6ops WG we have to use also the same principle as in the other WGs: rough consensus, and runnig code. If there is deployment there is definetely already running code. 

Cheers,

Jonne.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: 19 February, 2004 19:12
> To: Pekka Savola; Hinden Bob (Nokia-ES/MtView)
> Cc: Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki); v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Opportunistic Tunneling
> 
> 
> 
> > > I think the answer to this can be found by looking at what is
> deployed
> > > now.  In any case, I didn't think the IETF needs to be discussion
> > economic
> > > models.
> > 
> > Economic models, to an extent, make deployments realistic 
> (or not), so
> > I personally think this is somewhat of a factor in the discussions
> > whether to recommend some model for deployment.  Of course, the IETF
> > cannot _force_ anyone to a model.
> 
> I appreciate Pekka's concern for deployment, but I think that Bob is
> right. The bottom line is that the IETF is an engineering 
> organization,
> and its members are not very qualified to assess business models, let
> alone mandate them.
> 
> It certainly does not make sense to invest in a technology that cannot
> be deployed, and anyone designing a new protocol should concern
> themselves with deployment scenarios, e.g. what are the 
> dependencies, do
> we need to boil the ocean for this thing to fly, and other such
> considerations. Indeed, when a technology requires third parties to
> deploy servers or other helpers, the technology promoters 
> should have a
> plausible response to the question, "why would someone deploy your
> stuff".
> 
> However, we have many examples of technologies that get deployed for
> entirely different reasons than those initially advanced. The Arpanet,
> for example, was supposed to provide better access to time-sharing
> mainframes, and we know what happened. So, while there is a need for
> some conscious reasoning about deployment, Bob's point is 
> very valid. If
> a technology is in fact deployed, then the IETF should assume that
> someone somewhere saw a business case, and should not engage in a
> guessing exercise.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
>