Standards & Technology
A Look Behind the Scenes
The Internet and Standards Worries
As industry becomes more involved in the IETF, the standards process
faces new influences and concerns.
By Carl Cargill
The Internet has become the darling of the high-technology and future-savant
communities. It is pitched unmercifully as the new wave of business--the
"paradigm shifter" par excellence. Advertisements for it (or for
how to hook your company to it and thereby earn tremendous profits) appear
in newspapers with an astonishing degree of regularity. Even National Public
Radio constantly reports about the Internet and how it is the "cat's
meow."
This is all well and good. It's nice that people who were formerly afraid
of PCs have something new of which to be afraid. The possession of an enabled
Internet connection will become a necessary business tool (if only for prestige)
over the next several years. But--and this is critical--how will the Internet
grow?
If you look at the history of the Internet, you'll see that it has been
built on a voluntary standardization process that is considered unique in
the industry. Fun- damentally, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
the Internet's standardizing body, is a free-wheeling association of technically
competent and usually idealistic experts who believe in the fundamental
goodness of what they are doing. The IETF is generally open to anyone who
cares and wants to do what is right. It meets three times a year to solve
technical problems concerning the Internet and create sort of a "group
think" on where things are going with this strange medium of communications.
(For a full discussion of the outlook for Internet standards, see Will
the Internet Stay Open?)
The amazing thing is not that this approach has worked; the historical foundation
of the Internet was in areas that would encourage this type of activity.
The amazing thing is that the approach is continuing to work now. The frightening
question is how much longer it will continue to work. The reason for this
fear lies in the nature of networking standards as the IETF has created
them.
The fundamental rule for an Internet standard is that the proposed standardized
function must fit into the existing setup; that is, don't break what we
have. The second rule is that the best technical decision should always
be taken; not a compromised decision. The third rule--not explicitly stated--usually
focuses around the habits and realities of maintaining and improving the
system; solutions are created because there's a clear danger or problem
that needs fixing, not because there's a wonderful solution out there just
waiting to be born. When you take these procedures--and couple them with
the dedication that many people feel for the work that they do in the IETF--you
get a sense that things are going well and will continue to go well.
Commerce Meets the IETF
As with every silver cloud, however, there is a dark lining to this one.
The IETF originally was composed of fewer than 100 intense, devoted researchers
and engineers. They liked the ARPAnet idea and made it function, because
they believed that they were doing good work. The IETF now has over 1,200
participants. These people are sent by commercial organizations, and they
are charged with representing commercial interests, rather than the interests
of the Internet or its technology. They're interested in the technology
only as it can be applied to solve business or commercial problems for their
sponsoring organizations.
I do not mean to paint all of the newer participants as scoundrels; they
are far from it. But the emphasis is changing, ever so slightly. And the
emphasis will continue to change as more and more people--and more and more
dollars--get funneled into the Internet.
Many people (especially long-time members of the IETF) look nervously at
the failure of the International Organization for Standardization's Open
Systems Interconnect (OSI) schema. Looked at rationally, OSI was not especially
different in its conception than was the Internet. The difference was that
the OSI model attracted the attention of the major systems vendors almost
immediately, because it represented a technology that threatened the way
they architected systems, the way they did technology and the way they did
business. Their response was to send people to the meetings of the standards
groups that were crafting the underlying standards for OSI. And when the
standards were completed, they covered everything for everybody all of the
time--which is to say that they really covered nothing for nobody never.
The same is true of the IETF. This growth has come because the Internet
forces a fundamental shift in the way that organizations do business. When
Microsoft looks at the Internet as necessary to its success and realizes
that it must play with, and not own, the technology, it means a fundamental
shift has occurred. Other organizations--from browser companies to software
suppliers--are all becoming aware of the tremendous power of the Internet
as a technology, and they look at the source of that technology (the IETF)
with interest. As more and more companies get involved, more and more will
be at risk for the organizations that make up the user base.
This leads to a second major problem that the IETF is facing. When it was
small, and the Net was interesting but not necessary, it was possible to
make somewhat radical changes in the nature of the technology for marginal
improvements or for future planning or capabilities. When there is a trillion
dollars invested in the status quo, however, changing a standard becomes
substantially more difficult. And when there are two opposing camps, each
of which stands to make a half-trillion dollars because a specific change
was or was not made, gaining consensus in unstructured meetings becomes
very difficult.
Non-Technology Issues
The leaders of the IETF are aware of this problem. While failure of a standardization
organization breeds one form of behavior, success breeds an entirely different
form of behavior. And while the IETF seems to be handling success well,
the real problems have only begun to surface. The widespread commercial
adoption of the Internet; the appearance of government censorship; the problems
with encryption; the abuse of the Net by both commercial interests (lawyers)
and "hate groups" (a "PC" term if I've ever heard one);
and the growing critique of the Internet as a decisive social influence
(have and have-not groups) all will come to shape the way that the technology
is created and implemented. Remember, the network is only as strong as its
weakest member. The IETF faces the growing task of shoring up more and more
weak links--links threatened not by technology but by social and commercial
interests and problems.
When the Internet was small and cute, no one got too worried about it. It
is no longer small or cute. It is, rather, a vast, looming presence that
potentially overshadows even Microsoft. And it is based on a belief in the
fundamental goodness of what it is doing; its creators in the IETF were
making things better through standardization of technology. They have succeeded;
the question now is whether they can continue to succeed. If they can, the
Internet will continue to be capable of growing. If they cannot, the Internet
will not.
Carl Cargill is standards strategist at SunSoft in Mountain
View, CA. He can be reached at carl.cargill@eng.sun.com.