gregbo (gregbo) wrote,

  • Mood:

The IETF struggles to remain relevant

I read an article yesterday by Marcus Ranum, who did a lot of early firewall work at TIS during my last few months there. (I never worked with him, but I did interact with him a bit when I first started at Digital in 1995. Our group inherited the firewall he and some others had originally developed.) In the article he is critical of the IETF, stating that the RFC (Request for Comments) process is obsolete and that the IETF takes too long to develop standards.

There has actually been a long debate on the IETF discussion list on this subject. Lots of reasons for the IETF's inability to generate timely standards have been given, such as a lack of qualified volunteers and work/personal time conflicts of WG (working group) members and chairs. Complaints about the IETF have spread to other lists, such as the IRTF End-to-End research group, where topics such as congestion avoidance (my favorite) is discussed. Some of the debates have become quite personal and vicious.

It makes me sad to see this sort of thing happening because there are still quite a few people I knew who are still active in the IETF who were active back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was more involved in computer networking. However I think there is a lot of truth to what people are saying about the IETF because it isn't able to move quickly enough to keep up with the demand for certain types of solutions, so smaller groups (some associated with open-source projects, others with commercial vendors) implement solutions that are not always compliant with IETF principles. A very sore spot has been NAT (network address translation), which allows hosts behind a firewall or some other type of device to use private address space (non-publicly routed) to communicate with hosts in public address space. An often-voiced opinion among some members is that it breaks the end-to-end principle. However, it was needed because the next version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6) wasn't ready yet, and it wasn't possible for some organizations to get enough public IP addresses.

In all fairness, I think most IETF people try to do a good job and stick to the principles they believe in (rough consensus and working code, robustness of protocols, etc.). However, I think things happen too quickly now, and the IETF is not in a good position to keep up with the demand for new protocols, etc.

My BP is up again, possibly due to hard work during piano practice, but also stress over job search.

  • Ciena interview

    I had an onsite interview at Ciena a couple of weeks ago for a Senior Systems Test position. Long story short — I didn't get the job. I think they…

  • ProtonMail test

    I took a test from 7-9am this morning from ProtonMail, a secure email provider based in Geneva, Switzerland, that has an office in SF. The test was…

  • IBM interview

    I had an interview loop yesterday at the IBM Silicon Valley Lab facility with several people from the Cloud Network Services group. Four engineers…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.