it's been 24 years, and we still live in his shadow and stand on his shoulders. we try not to stand on his toes. randy
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, 23:24 Randy Bush, <randy@psg.com> wrote:
it's been 24 years, and we still live in his shadow and stand on his shoulders. we try not to stand on his toes.
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
randy
./noah
my favorite is It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 2:21 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
my favorite is
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
I wish I'd met him. I know I would have liked him a lot. We wear the same sandals. -- This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666560... Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
On October 16, 2022 at 14:18 randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
my favorite is
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
Early unix had a similar philosophical debate. Everything is a simple file (including most devices), make commands which do one thing and do it well so they can be connected together in new ways (an almost prescient view on the ubiquity of multi-cpu/core systems), when in doubt generalize and let the user specialize for their needs, don't try to guess everything your program will be used for. Then we got: POP-QUIZ! Name which letters a-z which aren't options to ls? Granted computing was more data processing than UI back then, but even desktop apps like word processing had this style (e.g., a separate program to format math equations or tables which could be piped into from the general word processing program in a pipeline, and another to do final formatting for the printing device.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Early unix had a similar philosophical debate. Everything is a simple file (including most devices), make commands which do one thing and do it well so they can be connected together in new ways (an almost prescient view on the ubiquity of multi-cpu/core systems), when in doubt generalize and let the user specialize for their needs, don't try to guess everything your program will be used for.
Oh. you mean SaaS? or WebSockets? or REST? or :) I remember an old guy I worked with. We were decommissioning our Prime for this new thing called "Novell 286" He said "The computer industry is like the car industry in the 50's. We add more grille, more fenders, more wings. But it is still a car."
One of the best things about this list is first hand accounts of our internet lore Does anyone have any stories about working with or near John they would like to share with the list? It would definitely make my day to hear more about the early internet Thanks, Dan On Sun, Oct 16, 2022, 8:01 PM Nathan Angelacos <nangel@tetrasec.net> wrote:
Early unix had a similar philosophical debate. Everything is a simple file (including most devices), make commands which do one thing and do it well so they can be connected together in new ways (an almost prescient view on the ubiquity of multi-cpu/core systems), when in doubt generalize and let the user specialize for their needs, don't try to guess everything your program will be used for.
Oh. you mean SaaS? or WebSockets? or REST? or :)
I remember an old guy I worked with. We were decommissioning our Prime for this new thing called "Novell 286"
He said "The computer industry is like the car industry in the 50's. We add more grille, more fenders, more wings. But it is still a car."
Does anyone have any stories about working with or near John they would like to share with the list? It would definitely make my day to hear more about the early internet
somewhere around i have a protocol violation ticket he issued. --- Who says that routing unallocated address space is ungood? -- Randy Bush Routing unallocated address space is ungood! -- Jon Postel randy
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 5:28 PM Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone have any stories about working with or near John they would like to share with the list? It would definitely make my day to hear more about the early internet
A good book on the topic of the early internet is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon. A large part of the book covers happenings at Bolt Beranek and Newman, and there are plenty of mentions of Jon Postel. Joseph
On 10/16/22 8:28 PM, Joseph wrote:
A good book on the topic of the early internet is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon. A large part of the book covers happenings at Bolt Beranek and Newman, and there are plenty of mentions of Jon Postel.
+1 (with an extremely large value of one) I have (re)read Where Wizards Stay Up Late /and/ recommended it to many people many different times. In my not so humble opinion, Where Wizards Stay Up Late should be required reading for anyone wanting to learn about the history / development of the ARPAnet and the Internet. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
On 2022-10-17, at 16:57, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
In my not so humble opinion, Where Wizards Stay Up Late should be required reading for anyone wanting to learn about the history / development of the ARPAnet and the Internet.
That said, it would be a worthwhile project to collect the places in which this source can be supplemented with additional information (a.k.a. grains of salt). Grüße, Carsten
On 10/17/22 10:54 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
That said, it would be a worthwhile project to collect the places in which this source can be supplemented with additional information (a.k.a. grains of salt).
Agreed. I believe there is much discussion to this effect on the Internet History mailing list. Link - Internet-history Info Page - https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Grant. . . . unix || die
The book, being written by an actual credentialed historian, contains their complete sources as footnotes/endnotes. That section was overwhelming, I mostly skipped it... Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) https://www.merlin.mb.ca Chat with me on Teams: athompson@merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent: October 17, 2022 11:54 AM To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: jon postel
On 2022-10-17, at 16:57, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
In my not so humble opinion, Where Wizards Stay Up Late should be required
reading for anyone wanting to learn about the history / development of the ARPAnet and the Internet.
That said, it would be a worthwhile project to collect the places in which this source can be supplemented with additional information (a.k.a. grains of salt).
Grüße, Carsten
That book needs a sequel. +10 on the internet history mailing list also.
Dave Taht wrote:
That book needs a sequel.
+10 on the internet history mailing list also. Assuming you're referring to "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" ...
You might check out xbbn.org - which redirects to http://exbbn.weebly.com/ - lots of collected personal recollections from the old days. It links to a variety of things, including: http://exbbn.weebly.com/a-culture-of-innovation.html - which is essentially oral history, through 2010, that extends a lot of the stuff in the book. There's an associated web site at https://walden-family.com/bbn/ - Dave is basically our historian - and https://walden-family.com/ has some more stuff of broader historic interest. Miles Fidelman, BBN 1985-1992 -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Fixed: Where Wizards Stay Up Late should be required reading for anyone wanting to learn about the history / development of the ARPAnet and the Internet. michael brooks Sr. Network Engineer Adams 12 Five Star Schools 720.972.4110 michael.brooks@adams12.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss" On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:59 AM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
On 10/16/22 8:28 PM, Joseph wrote:
A good book on the topic of the early internet is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon. A large part of the book covers happenings at Bolt Beranek and Newman, and there are plenty of mentions of Jon Postel.
+1 (with an extremely large value of one)
I have (re)read Where Wizards Stay Up Late /and/ recommended it to many people many different times.
In my not so humble opinion, Where Wizards Stay Up Late should be required reading for anyone wanting to learn about the history / development of the ARPAnet and the Internet.
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
RFC 2468 is brief but captures the both pleasure of working with Jon and his selfless spirit in pursuit of a better Internet. /John
On 16 Oct 2022, at 8:28 PM, Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
One of the best things about this list is first hand accounts of our internet lore
Does anyone have any stories about working with or near John they would like to share with the list? It would definitely make my day to hear more about the early internet
Thanks, Dan
Jon Postel participated in many online forums such as the tcp-ip mailing list. To access them, I’ve been using the archives at ban.ai <https://ban.ai/multics/non-multics-docs/tcpip-digest/sd-archive/>, but I can’t access them currently. They’re also available via Google Groups <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.protocols.tcp-ip>, but unfortunately there’s a lot of spam there. You could also visit the IETF mailing list archives <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/> that go back to 1992. —gregbo On Oct 16, 2022, at 5:28 PM, Daniel Sterling <sterling.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
One of the best things about this list is first hand accounts of our internet lore
Does anyone have any stories about working with or near John they would like to share with the list? It would definitely make my day to hear more about the early internet
Thanks, Dan
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, 00:18 Randy Bush, <randy@psg.com> wrote:
my favorite is
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.
Ack.... I thought of it in a slightly
different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on.
the impact of IP, TCP in improving human life across the globe in the last decades can not be overstated. Human enginuity through names like Google have enabled the age of information and access to information through addresses and digital trade routes have continued to ensure peace for humanity on the positive side of the communications spectrum. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling
the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
I suppose original human ideas and thoughts tends to stand the taste of time. Iterations often times leads back to the beginning. Noah
Dear Noah: 0) "Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.": Thanks for distilling this thread to a concise principle. Perhaps your name was given with the foresight of this discussion? 😉 1) As a newcomer to the arena, I have always been perplexed by the apparent collective NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome of the Internet community. While promoting openness, everything seems to go with "my way or noway". Of course, each Internet practice or convention was determined by some sort of consensus by majority opinion. However, once it gets going, it appears to be cast in concrete. There is a huge inertia against considering alternatives or improvements. Some of them even appear to be volunteered "policing" without full understanding of the background. Just like how practically all democratic governments are facing these days, a well-intended crowd can be led by an influencer to derail a social normality. It does not seem to me that strictly adhering to "one person one vote" rule can guide us toward a productive future. 2) To follow what you are saying, I wonder how could we think "out of the box" or go "back to the future", before it is too late for our world wide communications infrastructure to serve as a reliable daily tool without being a distraction constantly? That is, four decades should be long enough for our Internet experiments to be reviewed, so that we can try navigating out of the current chaos, or start with an alternative. Regards, Abe (2022-10-30 18:41 EDT) On 2022-10-30 12:47, Noah wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, 00:18 Randy Bush, <randy@psg.com> wrote:
my favorite is
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.
Ack....
I thought of it in a slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on.
the impact of IP, TCP in improving human life across the globe in the last decades can not be overstated.
Human enginuity through names like Google have enabled the age of information and access to information through addresses and digital trade routes have continued to ensure peace for humanity on the positive side of the communications spectrum.
What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
I suppose original human ideas and thoughts tends to stand the taste of time.
Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.
Noah
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
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. 2. Democracy does not work anywhere because unqualified people could be driven to make wrong decisions. Voting qualification check is mandatory, not everybody should have the right to vote for a particular question. I do not want to tell what was the qualification check in the early US or ancient Greece (where democracy was working) – because many would shout at me. It is not relevant to the technical group anyway. ETSI filters voting rights by money – the company should pay for memberships. 802.11 filter voting rights by the member's physical presence on the last 4 meetings. It is not ideal but it is better than no filtering at all. Eduard From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 1:42 AM To: Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Dear Noah: 0) "Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.": Thanks for distilling this thread to a concise principle. Perhaps your name was given with the foresight of this discussion? 😉 1) As a newcomer to the arena, I have always been perplexed by the apparent collective NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome of the Internet community. While promoting openness, everything seems to go with "my way or noway". Of course, each Internet practice or convention was determined by some sort of consensus by majority opinion. However, once it gets going, it appears to be cast in concrete. There is a huge inertia against considering alternatives or improvements. Some of them even appear to be volunteered "policing" without full understanding of the background. Just like how practically all democratic governments are facing these days, a well-intended crowd can be led by an influencer to derail a social normality. It does not seem to me that strictly adhering to "one person one vote" rule can guide us toward a productive future. 2) To follow what you are saying, I wonder how could we think "out of the box" or go "back to the future", before it is too late for our world wide communications infrastructure to serve as a reliable daily tool without being a distraction constantly? That is, four decades should be long enough for our Internet experiments to be reviewed, so that we can try navigating out of the current chaos, or start with an alternative. Regards, Abe (2022-10-30 18:41 EDT) On 2022-10-30 12:47, Noah wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, 00:18 Randy Bush, <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote: my favorite is It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. Ack.... I thought of it in a slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. the impact of IP, TCP in improving human life across the globe in the last decades can not be overstated. Human enginuity through names like Google have enabled the age of information and access to information through addresses and digital trade routes have continued to ensure peace for humanity on the positive side of the communications spectrum. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel I suppose original human ideas and thoughts tends to stand the taste of time. Iterations often times leads back to the beginning. Noah [https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
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-un...) Thanks, Donald
...
Eduard
It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of any chair (if it is a democracy). It is evidently not the case for IETF - people stay in power for decades. It is just a fact that is not possible to dispute. Yes, Nomcom is the mechanism for AD and above. I do not want to sort out how exactly it is performed. By the way, WG chairs have been put aside from any election mechanisms. If any politician would manage to possess power for more than 2 terms - he would be immediately called "totalitarian". Even if he would say that there is a mechanism for it. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC 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-un...) Thanks, Donald
...
Eduard
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:03 PM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of any chair (if it is a democracy).
The length of time in office and the amount of power in the office are, in my opinion, much, Much more important than the mere number of terms. I think that Elizabeth the II being Queen of England for 70 years was not much of a problem -- and it wasn't because she served only 1 term of office. It was because the British monarchy has essentially no executive authority. IETF Area Directors are selected for 2 year terms (or less if they are filling out the remainder of a term when someone has left office) not because 2 years is thought to be a reasonable length of time in office. I was around when the IETF NomCom system was being set up and the term was limited to 2 years as a balance between short terms to limit the damage a bad Area Director could do and long terms to decrease the amount of work for the NomCom. (In the early years of the NomCom, I believe there were a small number of cases of a 3 year term but only for an AD who had already successfully served for 2 years.) Although this isn't a written guideline, many people believe that the first 2 years in an Area Director position are sort of a probationary period and as long as the AD does adequately, they should normally be continued for a 2nd term, if they want it. Being continued for a 3rd or later term should only be for superior performance and in the absence of an apparently stronger alternative. Note the following -- Having served in one capacity or another on six Nomcoms over the 30 year history of the Nomcom system and I can assure you that there are always at least 1 or 2 positions for which the Nomcom, after the normal nomination period, has only zero or one possibilities to choose between and it is common for NomCom to have to engage in substantial recruiting (aka "arm twisting") to get more nominees from which to choose. I just checked the NomCom pages and right now there are three positions where, for the 2022-2024 term, the current NomCom has only one person who has been nominated and agreed to run. So it isn't like they have a vast pool of willing people to choose between. -- Most former Area Directors say that there is a substantial learning curve and it takes about a year before you are fully effective as an Area Director. So, if ADs were limited to 1 term of 2 years, the IESG would only be 50 to 75% effective. With 2 terms of 2 years, it is more like 75 to 88% effective. Furthermore, most Areas of the IETF have two co-ADs who tend to moderate each other and many decisions are made by the IESG, which consists of all the ADs, which is a further moderating effect.
It is evidently not the case for IETF - people stay in power for decades. It is just a fact that is not possible to dispute. Yes, Nomcom is the mechanism for AD and above. I do not want to sort out how exactly it is performed.
Well, the NomCom system is well documented in a number of RFCs. The most powerful single position in the IETF is the IETF Chair. As you can see from the attached image only one person has served as IETF Chair for as long as 8 years but as soon as the nomcom system was started, they were replaced. After that, only one other person served as long as 6 years, which was Russ Housley who I think was a particularly good IETF Chair. All others have been limited to 2 or 4 years (1 or 2 terms). It would take a lot more work to do a similar analysis for AD positions but I believe you would find that the length of time in office for ADs was longer in the early days of the IETF and is now rarely over 6 years. In an earlier message, you said something about people retaining positions due to networking with other people. Well, I would say that is characteristic of all human organizations (unless you go with strict Sortition). See my RFC 4144 "How to Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations".
By the way, WG chairs have been put aside from any election mechanisms.
Yes, there are people who have served as co-Chair of an IETF Working Group for long periods of time and there is currently no specific term of office for a WG Chair. But these days most IETF WGs have two co-Chairs, which has a moderating influence. Furthermore, Area Directors are where the real power is. The AD for a WG has the power to remove or appoint Chairs anytime so you have a very clear appeal path if you believe a WG Chair has acted improperly and failed, in your opinion, to rectify their error when you call their attention to it.
If any politician would manage to possess power for more than 2 terms - he would be immediately called "totalitarian".
I would agree that if a position has substantial executive power and someone fills the position for a long enough time (perhaps in the range of 8 to 10 years) then there is an effect where it gets harder and harder to imagine someone else in the position, etc. But I wouldn't necessarily call it "totalitarian" and the length of time is much more important than the number of terms. If someone is elected Speaker of the US House of Representatives for 3 successive Congresses, thus serving for 6 years (3 terms) in that office, they will have substantial clout because of this but they can't rule the House like a dictator against the wishes of a majority of the representatives of their party who can vote them out of the Speaker's office and elect someone else whenever they want. The fact that it is possible for a Speaker to be so elected for 6 or more years and that this has happened does not make the US House of Representatives a "totalitarian" organization and I would not call it that. Thanks, Donald
Even if he would say that there is a mechanism for it. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
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-un...)
Thanks, Donald
...
Eduard
I suppose this might be a useful point to butt in and say that one reason we don't/can't easily term-limit US representatives to congress is that it unjustly removes their right to run for office. Obviously (I think) not apropos to IETF functioning tho perhaps in spirit. But it's why it took an amendment to the US constitution to impose term limits on the presidency. And though they're difficult to overturn some will argue that this amendment removed not only the right of an individual to run for that office but also the right of voters to vote for that individual. Term limits are funny things and one thing making them an issue is advances in medicine where people might be effective well into their 90s (Warren Buffet is 92.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
On Nov 2, 2022, at 5:50 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
In the early years of the NomCom, I believe there were a small number of cases of a 3 year term but only for an AD who had already successfully served for 2 years.
There were two such cases - Jeff Schiller and myself. The situation was that in 1997 (IIRC) we had four areas with a single AD, and the IESG told the nomcom that the imbalance was strange. At its option, the nomcom could extend the term of a sitting AD that wasn’t up for renewal/replacement by one year to even things out. They did. In 2001, I resigned, and I think Jeff resigned in 1999.
I do not understand why you believe that only AD matters, if the real management is done mostly by Chairs. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 7:34 PM To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
On Nov 2, 2022, at 5:50 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
In the early years of the NomCom, I believe there were a small number of cases of a 3 year term but only for an AD who had already successfully served for 2 years.
There were two such cases - Jeff Schiller and myself. The situation was that in 1997 (IIRC) we had four areas with a single AD, and the IESG told the nomcom that the imbalance was strange. At its option, the nomcom could extend the term of a sitting AD that wasn’t up for renewal/replacement by one year to even things out. They did. In 2001, I resigned, and I think Jeff resigned in 1999.
some minor observations from the vantage point of a former AD inline. On 11/2/22 17:48, Donald Eastlake wrote:
It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of any chair (if it is a democracy). Although this isn't a written guideline, many people believe that the first 2 years in an Area Director position are sort of a probationary
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:03 PM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote: period and as long as the AD does adequately, they should normally be continued for a 2nd term, if they want it. Being continued for a 3rd or later term should only be for superior performance and in the absence of an apparently stronger alternative. Note the following
In my observed experience, it pretty much falls to a incumbent AD, to recruit alternatives, assuming they are doing a tolerable job of addressing the needs of their working groups. having done my 2 terms I found the role to be more one of middle management then of leadership, with the possible exception of organizing and promoting new work organization around BOFs and working group formation. ADs are highly dependent on WG chairs and senior individual contributors when it comes to advancing any particular activity.
-- Having served in one capacity or another on six Nomcoms over the 30 year history of the Nomcom system and I can assure you that there are always at least 1 or 2 positions for which the Nomcom, after the normal nomination period, has only zero or one possibilities to choose between and it is common for NomCom to have to engage in substantial recruiting (aka "arm twisting") to get more nominees from which to choose. I just checked the NomCom pages and right now there are three positions where, for the 2022-2024 term, the current NomCom has only one person who has been nominated and agreed to run. So it isn't like they have a vast pool of willing people to choose between. -- Most former Area Directors say that there is a substantial learning curve and it takes about a year before you are fully effective as an Area Director. So, if ADs were limited to 1 term of 2 years, the IESG would only be 50 to 75% effective. With 2 terms of 2 years, it is more like 75 to 88% effective.
Also, serving as an AD is significantly detrimental to one's own work in the IETF, both from a time perspective and respecting any chair, or other positions in one's area that you would give up in the process. As a volunteer activity there is a significant community service aspect too it. Unless your career goals involve a sympathetic employer and a goal of joining and staying in internet governance long term ADship has a significant impact on your ability to contribute to the IETF. I did my 4 years, that was enough.
Furthermore, most Areas of the IETF have two co-ADs who tend to moderate each other and many decisions are made by the IESG, which consists of all the ADs, which is a further moderating effect.
It is evidently not the case for IETF - people stay in power for decades. It is just a fact that is not possible to dispute. Yes, Nomcom is the mechanism for AD and above. I do not want to sort out how exactly it is performed. Well, the NomCom system is well documented in a number of RFCs.
The most powerful single position in the IETF is the IETF Chair. As you can see from the attached image only one person has served as IETF Chair for as long as 8 years but as soon as the nomcom system was started, they were replaced. After that, only one other person served as long as 6 years, which was Russ Housley who I think was a particularly good IETF Chair. All others have been limited to 2 or 4 years (1 or 2 terms). It would take a lot more work to do a similar analysis for AD positions but I believe you would find that the length of time in office for ADs was longer in the early days of the IETF and is now rarely over 6 years.
In an earlier message, you said something about people retaining positions due to networking with other people. Well, I would say that is characteristic of all human organizations (unless you go with strict Sortition). See my RFC 4144 "How to Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations".
The IETF as a whole has activities (Working Groups) whose productivity on a given topic is largely driven by a small number of individual contributors, these folks are entirely self-selected (authors, editors, collaborators, implentors). While there is not doubt quite a bit of survivor bias, networking and well as the capacity to be present (in person, remote) are necessary and rather expensive parts of advancing given pieces of work.
By the way, WG chairs have been put aside from any election mechanisms. Yes, there are people who have served as co-Chair of an IETF Working Group for long periods of time and there is currently no specific term of office for a WG Chair. But these days most IETF WGs have two co-Chairs, which has a moderating influence. Furthermore, Area Directors are where the real power is. The AD for a WG has the power to remove or appoint Chairs anytime so you have a very clear appeal path if you believe a WG Chair has acted improperly and failed, in your opinion, to rectify their error when you call their attention to it.
If any politician would manage to possess power for more than 2 terms - he would be immediately called "totalitarian". I would agree that if a position has substantial executive power and someone fills the position for a long enough time (perhaps in the range of 8 to 10 years) then there is an effect where it gets harder and harder to imagine someone else in the position, etc. But I wouldn't necessarily call it "totalitarian" and the length of time is much more important than the number of terms. If someone is elected Speaker of the US House of Representatives for 3 successive Congresses, thus serving for 6 years (3 terms) in that office, they will have substantial clout because of this but they can't rule the House like a dictator against the wishes of a majority of the representatives of their party who can vote them out of the Speaker's office and elect someone else whenever they want. The fact that it is possible for a Speaker to be so elected for 6 or more years and that this has happened does not make the US House of Representatives a "totalitarian" organization and I would not call it that.
Thanks, Donald
Even if he would say that there is a mechanism for it. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
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-un...)
Thanks, Donald
...
Eduard
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-un...)
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.
Dear William: 0) "Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.": Thank you so much in distilling this thread one more step for getting even closer to its essence. 1) The ITU charter is explicit in that governments are the parties who sponsor the Recommendations, then implement them as desired, respectively as well as dealing with the outcome, no matter it is good or bad, since there is no scapegoat. 2) The IETF is implicitly sponsored by businesses to create RFCs then impose them on (although may be called voluntarily adopted by) players internationally, without claiming much responsibility for its effects to the society. That is, the wealth of the citizens is extracted by the businesses through RFCs starting from treating IP addresses as private properties, while the governments bear the burden of dealing with the negative effects such as cybersecurity vulnerabilities. 3) It appears to me that by mentally branding ITU type of UN organizations "evil", the delicate balance between Cause & Consequence has been broken in the Internet era, with the businesses taking advantage of the first "C" for the benefit of their "shareholders" (creating billionaire CEOs, COOs, CFOs, etc.) while leaving the second "C" for the governments and the poor peasants to endure. I am not sure whether this is an improved operation model. 4) No wonder that there was an APNIC Labs Policy notes about "The Internet's Gilded Age" sometime ago. We need to recognize this root cause and begin to take corrective actions for navigating out of it. https://labs.apnic.net/?p=973 Regards, Abe (2022-11-02 08:32 EDT) On 2022-11-01 01:31, William Allen Simpson wrote:
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-un...)
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.
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On 11/2/22 8:33 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
0) "Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.": Thank you so much in distilling this thread one more step for getting even closer to its essence.
As I'd mentioned already, Randy Bush has also had some cogent thoughts over the years. That's where I'd first heard this phrasing long ago. Credit where credit is due. I've been involved since 1979. Hostility to an ITU-style organization arises from the earliest days of the NSFnet (which was government funded), in part because ATT was using the existing standards bodies to prevent the academic Internet itself from going forward. There's a lot of history. There are many different models for standards organization governance. I've been the head of standards for Red Hat for a few years (until it was bought by IBM), navigating roughly 50 different organizations. Back in the day, my early involvement was funded by government grants, government oversight committees, and political campaigns. (Particularly, my PPP work was originally funded by Bob Carr for Congress and Carl Levin for Senate, via Practical Political Consulting.) And for nearly half my life, I've been spending my time with a now former Member of Congress. So I've seen folks who know politics well.... All human effort is inherently political. Our problem is, engineers are particularly poor at politics.
William Allen Simpson wrote:
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.
Really? Given that high speed forwarding at that time meant TCAM, difference between 128 bit address should mean merely twice more TCAM capacity than 64 bit address. I think the primary motivation for 128 bit was to somehow encode NSAP addresses into IPng ones as is exemplified by RFC1888. Though the motivation does not make any engineering sense, IPv6 neither. Masataka Ohta
On 11/5/22 8:19 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
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.
Given that high speed forwarding at that time meant TCAM, difference between 128 bit address should mean merely twice more TCAM capacity than 64 bit address.
Carrying the ASN in every packet, going back to my Practical Internet Protocol Extensions (PIPE) draft that was merged into SIP->SIPP, meant there was no need for Content Addressable Memory. And was closer to the original Internet Protocol design of smart edges with dumber switches. Reminder, PIPE was 1992. We'd barely deployed BGP.
I think the primary motivation for 128 bit was to somehow encode NSAP addresses into IPng ones as is exemplified by RFC1888.
Probably as many motivations as there were members of the IESG. Telcos wanted their addresses, some hardware vendors wanted IEEE addresses. But several vendors seemed very intent on using the standards process for putting competitors out of business.
Though the motivation does not make any engineering sense, IPv6 neither.
Not much about the IPv6 result makes any sense. I'd reserved v6. For a long time, I've been rather irritated that it was used for purposes so far from my design intent.
On 10/31/22 00:41, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
2) To follow what you are saying, I wonder how could we think "out of the box" or go "back to the future", before it is too late for our world wide communications infrastructure to serve as a reliable daily tool without being a distraction constantly?
At the risk of being severely off-topic, this is an existential question that talks to the burden of priviledge. Current society has such technological advancement, famine, drought and war are not top-of-mind for most people (even if these issues are for many), compared to millennia gone by. The difficulty with modern-day priviledge is that many people cannot answer the "why" to our existence, because there is simply easy and abundant access to information, with comfort, that leaves so many without direction until much later in life. In millennia gone by, your purpose in life was to survive war, find food, find water, and keep your kin alive. The world is, for the most part, too comfortable for that, nowadays. All that leads to is the "constant distraction" that we see today, more so with the kids, but also with many adults. The very thing that has propelled society in many useful ways, is also what is likely going to set us back a tad. Mark.
On Sun, 2022-10-16 at 13:23 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
it's been 24 years, and we still live in his shadow and stand on his shoulders. we try not to stand on his toes.
randy
I got on the "interwebs" just before Al Gore invented the internet (no political statement, just that is the way it was back then.) 15 3.5" floppy disks, a 33Mhz 486, slackware, (and a really reliable USRobotics modem.) I found this thing called "RFC"... and Jim Postel was a man I really wanted to meet. Thanks, Randy, for reminding me of the shoulders I stand on.
On 10/16/22 15:55, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
I got on the "interwebs" just before Al Gore invented the internet (no political statement, just that is the way it was back then.) 15 3.5" floppy disks, a 33Mhz 486, slackware, (and a really reliable USRobotics modem.)
About the same time for me, may have been a 286. I remember fiddling with init strings and Trumpet Winsock. It wasn't really the interWEBs then. The web was a small part of the experience for me. USENET, email, FTP, Archie, gopher with a splash of www for flavor. -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
participants (24)
-
Abraham Y. Chen -
Adam Thompson -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Carsten Bormann -
Daniel Sterling -
Dave Taht -
Donald Eastlake -
Elmar K. Bins -
Fred Baker -
Grant Taylor -
Greg Skinner -
Jay Hennigan -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Curran -
Joseph -
Mark Tinka -
Masataka Ohta -
michael brooks - ESC -
Miles Fidelman -
Nathan Angelacos -
Noah -
Randy Bush -
Vasilenko Eduard -
William Allen Simpson