On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
This protocol has established a legacy base, as in it is going to be a part
of the infrastructure we have to work round for decades even if Apple abandon
it tomorrow.
It is now futile to attempt modification of the protocol except in limited
ways that do not impact the legacy base.
Therefore we need to have a description of the protocol as a standard used on
the Internet.
Does not follow. Having a description of the protocol, as it was deployed,
documented is usually a good idea. Having it as standard, not necessarily so.
There are a great many protocols which have "established a legacy base" which
are not suitable for standardization.
If people here want to be jerks and make that process painful, they can. But
they are damaging the organization in ways tbat they either do not understand
or do not care about.
The most effective way to damage the IETF, is to insist that the IETF endorse
technically flawed protocols as standards.
If IETF wants to be relevant, it has to give a timely response. Endless
fillibustering with nits has to stop.
People have a choice in standards organizations. The IETF has no special
position of control. If Stuart had waited for the IANA to issue his DNS
codes, bonjour would never have deployed and he would be out of a job. And
the only people who benefitted would be the process trolls.
If the IETF has no special position of control, then it doesn't matter if IETF
declines to standardize something.
Anytime I see someone making these kinds of arguments to support
standardization of something, it tells me that there is very probably something
seriously wrong with the proposal, and that at the very least it needs further
scrutiny.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf