On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 2016-03-22, at 2:03, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
The mode of failure I keep seeing in IETF is the following:
1) A very narrow scope is decided 'to focus'
2) Poorly thought out aspects of the proposal are defended because the
problems they cause are 'out of scope'
3) The resulting RFC describes a protocol that is worse than useless.
4) The proposal fails in the market.
5) The experience is used as 'proof' that the problem is insoluble.
(optional)
This holds for the IRTF too - though step 5 there is 'let's form an IETF
workgroup to push it into adoption! This time for sure!'
No, it doesn't "hold for the IRTF." Please don't generalize from your dislike
of the DTNRG's bundle protocol to the DTNRG as a whole, and then to the
entire IRTF.
I don't see how it applies to IRTF since the output there isn't meant
to be a widely used protocol.
I don't object to taking complex, difficult issues off the table in a
WG. But what I do object to is that folk take a whole load of use
cases and requirements off the table because they don't personally
care for them and then argue that there is 'no difference' between two
protocol choices because it doesn't affect their pet use case.