So the outline of "What is the IETF" http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#what
is not agreed upon?
It doesn't mention market relevance...did I miss something?
In the close to 10 years I've been a member, my understanding was our
goal was to be outside market influence and be part of something
"influential"...
Our "late coming IETF specifications" are making us irrelevant.
While I agree that "implementers' consensus" working groups are
typically market
driven, I think the greatest issue that needs to be addressed IS
expeditious consensus within IETF ( IE identifying areas there need to be
more effecient / more timely... )
IETF should be guiding and driving the market, not responding to it
with hindsight.
Some element should be added to the specifications process, some
limiting time frame administered internally, which eliminates our being late
( IE paralleled idea development )
Christian Huitema <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
wrote:Friday, May 20, at 2005 8:54 AM Sean Dorman wrote:
The purpose of IETF is to provide documented standards and
guidelines that help guide the market, NOT the other way around.
There is no agreement that this is in fact the purpose of the IETF.
Historically, the IETF has engaged in two types of activities, creating
technology that was perceived as much needed for the Internet, and
driving consensus between implementers on specific functions.
The "implementers' consensus" working groups are typically market
driven. A bunch of companies or non-profit groups realize that they are
working on quasi similar products, and that using an interoperable
standard would be more efficient than letting the market sort out
between proprietary designs. Such working groups typically have strong
timing requirements. If the IETF takes too long to reach consensus, then
proprietary solutions will gain market share, and the late coming IETF
specification will be essentially irrelevant. Having delays because the
working group cannot agree is bas enough, but it can usually be avoided
by just letting several proposals progress in parallel -- a choice
between two standard ways being sometimes perceived as more efficient
than complete fragmentation. On the other hand, there is no excuse for
delays created by bureaucratic processes and arbitrary pocket vetoes.
-- Christian Huitema
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf