> But if you aren't interested, why are you here? What's your interest? I
> don't understand your point. Are you here to convince the rest of us that
> the IETF is irrelevant?
Absolutely not. Nearly the opposite. I hope that if you look back at
some of my other messages in this thread that's clear.
>> You're complaining that some application-layer stuff like IM
>> isn't as orderly as you'd like.
> Disorder isn't good for the users, either. Its not just a personal
> view of orderliness. And it isn't good for the market to have such
> unnecessary and gratuitous disorder. That's why standards of any
> form exist.
I'm not so sure IETF can help user's other than by producing very
good, easily accessed documents with available reference
implementations. An endorsement/trust-based system for calling
attention to good standards seems like all you've ultimately got --
why not institutionalize *that*? Why *isn't* the rest of the
governance simply noise? Why *isn't* the rest of the governance
simply a game a professional organization has agreed to play that will
ultimately turn it into just another consortium? Isn't the
rule-mongering just a very indirect attempt to find rules that
coincidentally create the effects an endorsement/trust system would
render in a more naked form? What's the "value add" of anything beyond
an endorsement/trust system? My answers to those questions are clear
and that's why I say: strike while the iron is hot -- while there are
still recognizable names who roughly essentially deserve trust?
Ietf mailing list