At 10:55 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> Having the "parent" be a group does not change the model or the problems
> with it.
Your use of the word 'parental' could be misleading, because it imples
that the 'parents' are somehow superior to the person submitting the
proposal,
it means that there is control being imposed, with the claimed basis that
those imposing the control have superior ability to judge appropriateness.
There are problems with any model. I think there are fewer problems
with a model for extensions that requires community review,
The problems WITHOUT the control are theoretical and based on fear without
serious empirical foundation.
The problem WITH the control is that it hurts innovation. Internet
innovation that includes (multi-vendor) interoperability requires easy,
public registration of interoperability information. This has been
explained repeatedly.
> At 09:55 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> The world has multiple venues for publication of Internet
> specifications. The only concern for publication venue should be
> reliability of long-term access.
Standards organizations tend to respect one another's wishes about
extending another organization's protocols. IETF tends to want to
control extensions to its own protocols.
Next you will have us all required to be exactly the length of a particular
bed.
The IETF's "own protocols" already cite the heck out of work from elsewhere.
Keith, let's stop this ethnocentric perspective on things. It is seriously
counter-productive.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464