ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Not developing protocols

2001-02-11 18:00:02
I like to chip in my 5cent worth.

I think it is sometimes worthwhile to rethink on the process to a
standards vs the intention of that process. We, at IETF, sometimes
forget the process is there for a purpose. Particularly, this process
foster the review among technical peers so as to produce a standard
which is scalable, robust and actually usable.

But more importantly, it to ensure people actually use the standard
defined.

In the past, the IETF could put an iron clap on those who dont use the
standard ("if you dont switch to DNS from your host.txt, don't complain
you can't resolve hosts"). In recently years, the IETF wins by pure
technical merits which makes sense to community. But it has become more
and more apparent that technical merits can bring us only this far.
There are other factors which determine whether someone would adopt a
IETF standard such as policies.

As such, perhaps it is important to rethink on the role for a IETF WG
chair, whose roles used to bring the WG thru the IETF process. It is
much more than that.

IMHO, a successful WG is one whereby it has been successful been adopted
and used by the industry.

-James Seng


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




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>