Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: Ofer Inbar <cos(_at_)ne(_dot_)cohesive(_dot_)com>
"If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
We can. Just go work for a company that is willing to send you to
IETF on their time & money, and wants you to disrupt certain IETF
protocol work. I'm sure many of us have witnessed this in action, and
we've probably missed some of the more subtle and skilled efforts. It
most assuredly does happen. My epiphany on this subject came during a
session of the HTML 3.0 working group, circa 1994. I don't think it's
an accident that that WG effort did not produce a standard, although
of course I can't prove anything about anyone's intent at the time.
The official dogma of every Standards Process is that the Process has
failed if it does not produce a document. In real life, no document
is more often a success a failure. On the other side of the coin, a
committee document is more often a failure than a success. This side
is trivially proven for the IETF by referring to the RFC index.
I don't disagree with you, but note that I was careful not to say
"produce a document", but "produce a standard". Many working groups
produce documents that don't end up being widely applied, or useful,
or standards. Sure. But I don't think you'd argue that the HTML 3
working group of the mid-90s was a success, or that their lack of
results was a boon to interoperability.
Also, the question of whether or not failure to produce a document is
a good thing in particular cases, is beside the point. It doesn't
change the fact that people *are* paid to prevent working groups from
developing protocols (whether they produce documents or not). Saying
that this may not be necessarily bad is not the same as saying it
doesn't happen.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos(_at_)aaaaa(_dot_)org
cos(_at_)exodus(_dot_)net
-- Exodus Professional Services -- http://www.exodus.net/
"OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!"
-- Einar Stefferud <Stef(_at_)nma(_dot_)com>, IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992