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. > If people here want to be jerks and make that process painful, they can. But > they are damaging the organization in ways tbat they either do not understand > or do not care about. The most effective way to damage the IETF, is to insist that the IETF endorse technically flawed protocols as standards. > If IETF wants to be relevant, it has to give a timely response. Endless > fillibustering with nits has to stop. > > People have a choice in standards organizations. The IETF has no special > position of control. If Stuart had waited for the IANA to issue his DNS > codes, bonjour would never have deployed and he would be out of a job. And > the only people who benefitted would be the process trolls. If the IETF has no special position of control, then it doesn't matter if IETF declines to standardize something. Anytime I see someone making these kinds of arguments to support standardization of something, it tells me that there is very probably something seriously wrong with the proposal, and that at the very least it needs further scrutiny. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
