Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
The "What makes a protocol successful" presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
I don't think that's valid statistics: obviously many of the protocols
in question were already successful before they were given to the IETF,
which isn't necessarily the case for protocols developed "in-house".
That's the point: protocols created in the IETF, over the last 10 years, do
not have a very good record of deployment and use. Protocols created outside
the IETF and then brought into the IETF have a better track record.
This suggests that the IETF has become a place to refine existing (proven)
work and to expand its community of adopters, rather than to formulate initial
work and gain initial adoption.
On reflection, this should not be viewed as heretical or even problematic.
When a group grows to have the kind of massively diverse participation that
the IETF now gets, it is rarely going to be possible to develop or maintain
the kind of coherent focus needed to get solid, cohesive specifications
written: Things move from getting "different perspectives" to getting
"constant objections".
A successful protocol needs a tight design focus and a a clear market need.
Our current base of participation makes it difficult to formulate either.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf