Nit-pick? Me? Why suuuuure...
At 7:34 PM 1/12/95, Amanda Walker wrote:
Actually, a couple people have pointed out in email that with the IAB/JTC1
I think the JTC1 recognition of the IETF work is a fine thing. But I do
NOT think it is something that has a fundamental effect on reality.
The reality is that any group may assert that it is a standards body. It
can meet, write specs, and distribute them. Ultimately, the only thing
that matters is that the specs get used. IETF specs get used. They've
gotten used for quite a few years, now.
It is the USE that determines whether a body can meaningfully be called a
standards body, in my view. (Adding labels like "open" or "public" carry
restrictions, and the IETF qualifies here, too.) But recognition by other
standards bodies is not an existance proof. It merely makes things easier
(in my view.)
This is fair. By my contrast of prescriptive vs. descriptive, though, I
was trying to contrast "if we this, it will work" to "we did this, and
this is what we found out." I much prefer the latter, in general.
me too. it's important. but it doesn't define standards-body-versus-not.
It has a lot to do with effective-vs-not, in many cases, but that's a
course of a different colour.
This is the kind of trap I think we are in danger of falling into if we're
not careful.
indeed.
Given this definition (which I accept perfectly amicably given some data I
didn't have yesterday :)), what are our stated goals (and, if possible,
yeah, I noticed that the charter wasn't strictly accurate. I'm not part of
the working group management hierarchy, so I don't know the formal answer.
Informally, I'd summarize the goal in the fashion I used in my previous
message.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
dcrocker(_at_)mordor(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu