-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 31 May 2004 11:12 am, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
But legislators do it all the time: they write laws that
expire, and are either renewed at the time of expiration,
allowed to lapse, or are updated with new language.
Why shouldn't RFCs, the laws of the Internet, do the same?
What do people think?
I don't think the IETF represents best practices or even current practices
very well. They have a set of recommendations that are nothing more or
less. It is because people actually decide to follow them that they are
followed. The same goes for any standards body, anywhere. Just because an
ISO or W3C standard exists doesn't mean people use it today.
Getting people to adopt a new version of a protocol is not much different
from getting people to adopt Linux v2.6 over 2.2 or 2.4, or moving people
from Red Hat 6.2 to 7.3 to 9 to FC 1 etc... They expect to upgrade, and
they plan to do it. When they don't, they bear the burden of not doing so.
Let's just get on our soapboxes and tell people, "Hey, the stuff we are
doing now is experimental. It may not even work! I can only guarantee one
thing: it will change. Either it will get abandoned or get upgraded. Maybe
it will stick around for a while, but no one can tell for how long."
When people get in the mindset that every couple of years the internet
itself is upgraded, then we will be on the right track. People will design
their software to be more modular. They will make hardware that can be
upgraded. They will keep their software updated. They won't invest millions
of dollars into projects that rely on old, outdated standards, but rather
always seek to find the cutting edge, develop it, and adopt it early.
They'll always come to the internet via email or web browsing expecting
things to change and won't be surprised when it does. When that new
standard is introduced, they will be that much more willing and ready to
jump on it.
So, as we write SPF, let's remember that we can throw it away if it is
broken. Let's keep telling each other, "Expect a new SPF soon." And let's
not get in the mindset that SPF is the end-all solution. Sure, we try to
future-proof it, but the best way to future-proof it is to plan its
obsolesence.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
Web Developer, Amazon.com
jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com - (206) 266-2906
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAvOMbBFeYcclU5Q0RAhDPAJ9oN3p+rWVxhTWqjDKoW0uAVSD6fwCgjeKH
Yqnafv8SN8jH1mFjgNSU1PY=
=ct/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----