It should be easier to get a specification to IETF standard than to start an
alternative standards organization.
I think that is still true and tried to convince the OpenID people that this
was the case but they did not believe me.
The question is priorities and costs. Having a process that is designed not
to function imposes real costs and reduces the influence of the
organization.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>
wrote:
The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a
mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist
change there.
joel
On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Tony,
I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
of the IETF process and
the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the
US government
decided that no further R&D funding was required, since the Internet was
"done".)
Bob Braden
It would work if the overall process were more efficient. Now we
effectively
go WG I-D to full IS, which is what your eloquent overview of the
driving
force notes. If we truncated WG I-D at the common points people could
agree
to start implementing, and have PS actually document the evolution of
the
implementations, we would get back closer to when the IETF was
productive. ...
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf