Every protocol begins as a wild idea by one person. So I don't accept John's
point.
Forcing groups together is not necessarily a good idea. The counter example I
would give is SAML, WS-Trust and OpenID. Merging protocols prematurely can be a
mistake. The groups have to be speaking the same language for a start.
Requiring a merger for standards process is a good idea, usually, but standards
are not always the best approach. If you don't yet understand the problem space
you should not be wasting peoples time on the standards circuit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
[mailto:Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:28 AM
To: paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re:
Withdrawingsponsorship...)
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:08 PM +0300 6/13/07, <Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
The hurdle of getting IETF consensus and publishing an RFC
does weed
out many crazy proposals that, in all fairness, would not
have made
the Internet work better, and would not have promoted
interoperability.
It does not need to promote interoperability; being
interop-neutral is
sufficient. How does giving a codepoint to someone with a
crazy (and
let's say even dangerous to the Internet) idea hurt
interoperability?
It seems to be interop-neutral.
I think giving out codepoints freely would in many cases
encourage having multiple (often half-baked) solutions to the
same problem.
To give one example we both worked on: I think it's good we
didn't allocate codepoints to all the individual MOBIKE
protocol proposals (mine, Tero's, Francis's), and instead
were "forced" to work together and converge on a single protocol.
Probably the "market" would have eventually picked one of
them as the winner, but meanwhile, the situation would IMHO
not have been interop-neutral. (And working together also
produced a better protocol than any of the individual drafts were.)
I'm not saying that this particular cooperation would not
have happened with less strict IANA policies -- but I do
believe that if the bar for getting codepoints and publishing
an RFC would be significantly lower than today, we would have
a much larger number of poorly concieved and overlapping
extensions to various IETF protocols. (And IMHO that would
not always be interop-neutral.)
However: I do agree with John Klensin's statement that "there
is a difference between registering a parameter for a
non-standard specification that is already deployed and in
successful use and registering one for a wild idea by one person."
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf