Deploying *any* enhancement to a global, installed base takes many
years. No doubt you meant something special, but your point
escapes me.
Au contraire, the Web was deployed on a worldwide basis less than a
year after the public launch.
HBP> The Web was successful before the IETF was involved and largely
HBP> in spite of IETF dogma.
"Largely in spite of"? wow. And here I am, unable to recall your
involvement in any of those activities, and even more unable to guess
whatever it is you might have in mind with such a broad and forceful
assertion.
I am not surprised since I can't recall your involvement in the Web.
Mine is a matter of record - see the back of the HTTP spec.
You have not even responded to the actual query I made, never mind
responded with a "proof".
Letsee, just what did you provide to support your original assertion?
That would be nothing at all.
1. You made an assertion about the operational superiority
of enhancing
an installed base through a core approach, rather than an
edge approach.
Actually you made the original assertion. I refuted it, stating that
there is more evidence for the opposite point of view.
HBP> Well duh! Multimedia mail does kinda require a
multi-media client.
The prevailing view, for 10 years, was that it also required a
multi-media core. This view was incorrect. As soon as it was
discarded, multi-media mail deployed quite nicely.
So you see the value in throwing out the prevailing view. A pity
you cannot connect it to IETF dogmas as well.
In other words, if it is "single-ended" then there is no
interoperability and it is not really a networking standard.
Content filtering is single opt-in and is spreading fast, without
'interoperability issues' it would appear.
Interoperability is another of those words that the IETF has
managed to turn into a shiboleth turned 90 degrees from reality.
Yes interoperability is a good thing, no it is not the be all and
end all that many would have it be. You can break compatibility
with UUCP and the world is not going to fall in on you.
In IETF speak interoperability really means respect for incumbent
authority. So interoperability with MUTT userbase perhaps 0.5%
of internet users is absolutely vital. Interoperability with
Notes or Exchange or any other commercial product is completely
unimportant, there is clearly no value they add.
HBP> Content filtering requires only single ended adoption.
And it is not subject to network standardization.
Network standardization can improve its operation and reduce
the amount of damage done.
But it is irrelevant to any discussion of networking standards.
The companies I work with tend to disagree.
Personally, I think it would be wonderful, if that were the kind of
detail we needed to debate. Alas we are not even close, and I suspect
that when we are, it will not require an IRTF group.
Then why did you raise the issue in the first place?
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg