Interesting list.
Carsten Bormann wrote:
My biased, personal, quick-shot-from-the-hip diagnosis (and I'd love to
hear different views):
-- The problem was not made clear -- too much apple pie, too little
slicing;too much focus on individual requirements and not enough on the
big picture.
yes, though it was perhaps a bit more nuanced, because there was in fact some
big picture. However I think it was not the right kind to be effective for this
audience.
-- The Web 2.0 use case (titled "blogosphere") was foreign to much of
the audience.
I did not see this case as causing anyone heartburn. So I can't guess what you
saw that prompts this assessment.
-- There was no attempt made at a convincing case that existing stuff
does not cut it on its own.
Agree.
-- The organization of the BOF succumbed to early derailing attempts, so
not enough of the substance was actually presented -- it was not
possible to establish enough common ground for reasonable discussion.
Disagree.
First, I saw very minor efforts to "derail", where I only count "stop the DIX
effort" in that category.
What I and others did attempt was to re-organize the focus, to deal with the
concerns that many in the audience found higher priority, and therefore attempt
to make the BOF productive. Those of us expressing this difference in
priorities have been doing IETF work long enough to believe we have some
understanding of how to fail and how to succeed within the IETF. For some of
us, knowledge about how to fail entails very deep expertise, engendering a
strong desire to spare that pain for the next guy...
At any rate, this was *not* derailing. Rather, it is adapting to the audience,
and since support of the IETF community is presumably the goal, then the
preferences and needs of the IETF audience ought to be heeded.
-- The whole time, apart from the many interested spectators, there were
two fractions:
1) people who think in terms of a different problem space, already know
the solutions for that and somehow are confident that the (not very
clear) problems at hand can be solved with these as well, and
2) people who think in term of the DIX problem space but were inhibited
from talking about how their solutions have significantly different
properties from the Enterprise ones.
You left out the faction that I believe was dominant in the group: People who
believe this is a very important problem space but a) do not see the seeds of
success in DIX, yet, and b) want to fix a).
In the end I felt like I sat in a BOF trying to sell SMTP to an X.400
crowd (and yes, I'm old enough to have been there).
Excluding the few loud voices that expressed religious preference for some
"established" solutions, I do not believe any of the active critics qualify for
this model.
It was, I think, more like trying to have an engineer sell a product to an
end-user. There was a complete mismatch of agendas and (in some sense) skills.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
