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

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Harald,

> Actually, disagreeing with me in public might be a good thing - it
> reinforces the message that the IESG, too, does not regard this as a 
> finished product, but as input to the discussion.
> But what does the rest of the IESG think? Or should we wait until we meet 
> in Chicago before agreeing to take our disagreements public?

before taking it out in public, it would be good to discuss different
views, try to minimize the number of variations, and come out to the
community with a well thought-out list (1 or more) of possible scope
definitions with the analysis of how those, if accepted, will impact
the current and future work in the IETF.

> What's been interesting so far is that I've seen little or no objection to 
> the "the purpose of the IETF is .... standards" part of the statement.

Messages from Scott and Keith seemed to quite strongly suggest that
the standards are only one of the products of the IETF, but not its
sole purpose. I'm still chewing on this, but I can certainly see the
rationale behind the argument.

Alex

> This indicates to me that if we can get "for the Internet" defined right 
> (and I think you're right in that I was wrong in reusing the term from the 
> document in my bulleted list of alternatives), we've got a fair chance of 
> getting something useful out of the discussion.

>                           Harald