[Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

Kevin Oberman oberman at es.net
Fri Feb 26 11:09:24 CST 2010


> From: gordon b slater <gordslater at ieee.org>
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:52:21 +0000
> 
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:40 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> > I guess nobody needs ITU-T anymore, or do we ?
> 
> ZCZC 
> 
> well, from vague memory,  H.264, G711/729, H323, X.509 were/are ITU-T
> standards - maybe X.25 too though I could have that one wrong.
> 
> I'll just sit on the fence: as an old radiocomms guy, I'd say ITU-_R_ is
> still very relevant if you guys DON'T want to watch/listen N. Korean or
> Bangladeshi TV/radio on your home Sat systems or car radios, to name a
> couple of recently quoted countries  :)
> 
> But ITU-T? That's one for the VoIP guys to shout about.

No, it is one for everyone who does networking to shout about!

ITU is exactly the sort of organization I DON'T want to see in control
of the Internet. If you think IETF has gotten to unmanageable, wait
until you deal with the ITU-T. It is VERY lawyer heavy.

I had to attend some X.400/X.500 meetings and, while the lawyers were
never "running" anything, most of the technical people could only
speak through the lawyers and the suits out-numbered the techies by
almost two to one. And this was a low-level working group. I understand
it gets worse as you move up the ladder.

The network revolution has left the ITU-T very little to do (at least
compared to the old telco days) and they show every sign of wanting to
bring all of us wild IP folks under control.

Oh, and X.25 and X.509 are from an older organization that merged into
the ITU-T when it was created, the CCITT (International Telegraph
and Telephone Consultative Committee). It became the ITU-T in 1992.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751




More information about the NANOG mailing list