> So the outline of "What is the IETF" http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#what
> is not agreed upon?
> It doesn't mention market relevance...did I miss something?
It also does not mention "guiding the market", but rather prominent
usage of words like "pressing" or "near-term" that emphasize the need
fo
So the outline of "What is the IETF" http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#what is not agreed upon?It doesn't mention market relevance...did I miss something? In the close to 10 years I've been a member, my understanding was our goal was to be outside market influence and be part of something "influential".
The purpose of IETF is to provide documented standards and
guidelines that help guide the market, NOT the other way around.
There is no agreement that this is in fact the purpose of the IETF.
If this is not the purpose of IETF, then IETF has no purpose and
should be abandoned.
Keith
Friday, May 20, at 2005 8:54 AM Sean Dorman wrote:
> The purpose of IETF is to provide documented standards and
> guidelines that help guide the market, NOT the other way around.
There is no agreement that this is in fact the purpose of the IETF.
Historically, the IETF has engaged in two types o
The purpose of IETF is to provide documented standards and guidelines that help guide the market, NOT the other way around.
Market relevance is NOT what drives IETF. Market relevance is moot, whereas the "Rinse-Repeat" means of idea refinement is not; we do the best we can with what we have.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I have no objection to 33=>DCCP.
I am curious about two things:
a) is this the start of the reclaim process?
(I think that this may be a good thing)
b) is there some reason why DCCP should specifically want protocol 33?
- --
] Michael Richardson
