Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
That's fine. You might want to study the evolution of NNTP.
There, lack of
the official IETF stamp of approval did not inhibit NNTP from
evolving. If
you try to implement NNTP based only on IETF's standards-track
documentation, you won't get very far.
Are you saying that NNTP is a good example of protocol design?
Or a good example of creating a widely supported feature set?
NNTP works. It has survived the onslaught of spam far better than SMTP. I
may be see one or two spam message a week across all the newsgroups I'm
subscribed to. And NNTP's evolution was outside of the IETF process.
I don't think either really holds. NNTP was in any case established
and the RFC published before the date of the first IETF meeting
and long before there was a defined IETF process.
The early versions of NNTP, perhaps. The NNTP of today has evolved far
beyond those early days.
NNTP chews up about four orders of bandwidth more bandwidth than it
needs to.
I don't think so.
The protcol set is poorly standardized and the application
has failed to meet the problems of spam, trolls and other social
issues.
That's not what I'm seeing. I see hundreds of thousands of independent
nodes; excellent propagation, certainly no worse than SMTP.
pgpkuIFaHRnIb.pgp
Description: PGP signature