On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Internet Standards are what run on the Internet.
Lots of things run on the Internet that are not standard.
The reason that I keep proposing process and document changes is because I
would like the IETF to be more effective in playing a leadership role in
Internet Standards making.
Ideally, IETF's role is to provide advice that helps the Internet and
Internet-based protocols work well. Merely blessing things that do not work
well is not playing a leadership role.
The Web is bigger than one person or one organization.
So expecting to control its growth or development is as futile for us as for
anyone else.
Control has nothing to do with it. But if IETF doesn't fairly reliably give
good advice, its reputation will decline and IETF will become less relevant.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf