Robert Sayre writes:
I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get
work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most
of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are
implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants
are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs,
and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see.
Which implementers are those?
Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on discussion groups;
they are too busy implementing.
Gee, it's nice to know I don't exist - that will save me tons of time...
As it happens I'm actively involved in the implementation of almost all of the
protocol specifications I work on. I typically write the code myself for SMTP
and sieve stuff, IMAP stuff is usually done by other people on my team. And
this code usually ends up in commercial products used at lots of sites to
support many millions of users - it is hardly an academic exercise.
I know lots of other IETF participants who are involved in specification
implementation. Quite a few of them write the code themselves. Some work on
open source, others on propietary implementations, and there are even some that
appear to do it just to make sure things really are implementable. In fact
there are entire WGs (e.g., sieve) where almost all of the active participants
appear to be implementors.
Analyze, specific, code, test,
release. No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that
process.
How very wrong you are. This sort of interaction is HUGELY valuable to
implementors.
And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend
them doing things or spend them talking about doing things, but it's
hard to manage both.
This, at least, is true. But "hard to manage" != "imposssible to manage".
It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the
past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in
response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF
is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here.
If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were
dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be
accomplished?
Aside from providing comic relief, exactly what does your your ridiculous
assertion that implmentors don't particulate in the IETF accomplish?
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf