We are developing the LEAP protocols independently of the IETF, and we have not sought out their formal endorsement by the IETF.
Our decision to work independently of the IETF is a result of our previous experiences with IETF. Based on our interactions with the IETF, we have concluded that the illegitimate influence that the IESG and the IAB exert over non-IETF protocol specifications is counterproductive. We believe that the IESG and IAB are both prejudiced against externally-generate protocols (a frame of mind sometimes referred to as Not Invented Here syndrome), and that they engage in the active supression of competing protocols which originate outside their own domain.
The IETF has become an autocratic organization that acts to suppress innovation rather than encourage it. Indeed, on its own mailing lists, the IETF acronym has been referred to as the ``Innovation Extermination Task Force,'' and the IETF/IESG/IAB has been referred to as a ``cult.'' We do not consider either of these characterizations as being in the least inappropriate.
Our conclusion is that Big Business and political interests have now taken over the critical decision making processes within the IETF/IESG/IAB. We have come to this conclusion after many years of attempting to work within the system to bring the IETF back to it its original intended purpose. Our interactions with the IETF relating to several issues are publicly available:
Based on the above records we have come to the conclusion that the IESG is now characterized by irresponsibility, incompetence and arrogance.
We believe that a lesser IETF will be a better IETF. The IETF has been a source of new protocols in the past, and there is no reason why it cannot continue to create and develop new protocols in the future.
But traditionally, the scope of IETF has gone far beyond this; the IETF has also claimed responsibility for judging, labelling and ratifying protocols. We believe that these IETF functions are unnecessary and inappropriate. All the functions that the IETF claims to provide can be accomplished by means of:
The first three items above are sufficient to ensure that a protocol is patent-free, is freely available, and is open to democratic and egalitarian development processes.
And the fourth item above provides a more than adequate mechanism for determining which protocols become enduring industry standards, and which fall by the wayside.
So what positive thing can the IETF offer that is not better provided elsewhere? The answer is: not much.
We have no objection to the IETF existing as an entity, developing protocols, and making them available for use. What we demand is that other protocols have exactly the same opportunities as those of the IETF. These consist of the opportunity to be made public, and the opportunity to be judged by means of open competition, and on the basis of their merits.
What we object to most strenuously, is the IETF/IESG/IAB arrogating to itself the power to quash protocols that it considers to be in competition to its own. This is not the job of the IETF/IESG/IAB; this is the job of fair competition.
We believe that the collective intelligence and expertise of the Internet technical community is adequate protection against widespread adoption of ``wrong'' protocols, and we believe that the market and the consumer can collectively make the right eventual decisions. The actions of irresponsible entities such as IESG and IAB, claiming illegitimate authority to select winners and losers at the time of initial publication of protocols, on the pretext of protecting the network and the consumer, in fact does more harm than good.