Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to disagree.
Firstly, if many of us reading the document can not figure out what
problem it is solving, then the framework is not doing its job.
As I tried to indicate, any sort of broad-based confusion about the purpose or
use of a spec is a very basic indication that the spec cannot work. How can it
work if the potential adopter community does not know what it is for or how to
use it?
So I suspect we do NOT disagree on this point.
Secondly, if there are existing, viable, deployed solutions to the
problem that the WG is attempting to solve then the WG needs to explain
somewhere (the framework document would seem the obvious place) why
there is a need for a new solution.
I enjoy debating preferences and superiority as much as the next IETF attendee,
but it is not a good basis for rejecting the diligent effort by a chartered
working group.
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
> The fact that the IETF is supposed to be based on "Rough consensus and
> running code" is completely being missed here.
That is clearly not correct. The nature of Sam's public query is specifically
(and explicitly) looking for certain kinds of rough consensus.
Currently there are
> multiple interoperable implementation of the protocol in addition to
> there existing an open-source implementation as well.
> The fact that several years of peoples work and effort has gone into
> this is being ignored by claims that I find quite have a vested
> interest.
That some people have a common view of the work and that they have used that
common view to produce interoperable implementations is extremely important.
However the difference between "a few folks can make this work" and "the
broad-based Internet technical community can make this work" entails a
non-trivial aspect of protocol scaling. Scaling in development and adoption is
just as important as scaling in use.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf