On 20 May 2024, at 10:13, Bob Hinden wrote:
On May 19, 2024, at 7:22 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/10/2024 2:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/10/2024 10:54 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
* Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development,
there must be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed
standard from at least two independent parties, as recorded on a
related IETF mailing list.
Just realized this concern did not get attention:
Simply put this is a thoroughly unreasonable burden.
I disagree.
Companies don't work that way.
That's an overly broad universal statement.
Companies do not make public, future commitments for implementing
standards. And when there are attempts to get them to, they waffle
and evade.
Some do, some don't. We've had experience in the email community where
people participate quite openly, show up for the hackathon with example
code, and discuss their implementation plans quite openly. We've also
had experience where (mostly large) companies do exactly what you
describe. The requirement is not that all participants in the WG make a
commitment to implement; just two or more.
Also, I believe, the IETF has wisely never tried to impose this
burden.
I regularly hear the question posed in BOFs. Perhaps that's just
lip-service, but it's certainly being taken into consideration. And I
think it is a perfectly wise thing to impose, particularly in a space
where we've seen multiple proposals over the years that individuals
bring to WGs, get large amounts of input and direction, only to discover
that nobody is interested in implementing it aside from the implementer.
Again, if the goal is to limit this working group to only take on
specifications that are already in use, then just say that. It's
simpler, clearer, more direct and, frankly, more pragmatic.
That is not the intention as far as I understand it, and in fact it is
something that I would rather see us decrease or eliminate rather than
encourage. If people want to work on specifications outside of the IETF,
they should publish them outside of the IETF. We have seen the ill
effects of bringing in work that is mostly or completely "done". And
there is IMO no reasonable way to truly assess the IETF consensus for
work that is mostly or completely done outside of the IETF.
Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter.
To further Dave’s points, “implementation” is not the same as
deploying it operationally at scale. That would be a significant
commitment for someone to make.
Actually, that seems to be *opposed* to Dave's points rather than
furthering them: Deploying at scale *would* be too significant a
commitment to make. Implementation is not, at least for some folks.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
