RE: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission )

[Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com]

Hi Harald,

It probably isn't a good idea for me to disagree with you publicly
about what our statement means, so I have only included the IESG
list.  If you think that I should take this to the wider audience,
then let me know.
 
> - "For the Internet" - only the stuff that is directly 
> involved in making the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.

If I understood you correctly, this is what you are claiming that
we meant, and that this is fundamentally different from:

>- "Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet that needs to be 
>open and interoperable is appropriate for IETF standardization". This would 
>place SMTP, DNS and LDAP (in the original vision) inside the IETF's sphere, 
>but would leave the traffic lights (and the current way LDAP is used) 
>outside it.

Now, I thought that "For the Internet" meant more or less the
same thing as the above paragraph.

But, since your list appears to be ordered, you are claiming
that "For the Internet" is two steps more restrictive than 
"Everything that builds infrastructures on the Internet and that needs
to be opena nd interoperable".  And, that it is even more restrictive
than:

>- "Everything that can seriously impact the Internet is appropriate for 
>IETF standardization". Argues for keeping HTTP and DNS, would include your 
>hypothetical traffic lights, but would probably leave POP/IMAP out, and 
>leaves people arguing about both SIP and L3VPN.

Is that really what other members of the IESG thought we were
saying?  That we were restricting the scope of the IETF to a level
that wouldn't include (among other things) LDAP, E-mail, SIP, VPNs...

Because that isn't what I thought I was agreeing to say.

Margaret