- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: on the value of running code (was Re: Do you want to have more
meetings outside US ?)
David Conrad wrote:
I'd offer that
Tom.Petch wrote:
Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running
products.
...
OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products
and I was involved with their implementation.
So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed
Tom.Petch wrote:
Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running
products.
...
OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products
and I was involved with their implementation.
So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed and
On Aug 3, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
My point was about the failure to make sure there was large-scale,
multi-vendor, in-the-wild *service*. Anything that constraint [in]
what can go
wrong will limit the ability to make the technology robust and usable.
There are currently
..
I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be
useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running
code' as
a barrier for
Lixia Zhang wrote:
..
I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be
useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as
Lixia Zhang wrote:
..
I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be
useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running
code'
David Conrad wrote:
I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more
reviewed than the TCP/IP stack.
Depends what you mean by more reviewed.
More eyes looking at the specs? Probably yes. More critical analysis by
senior technical architects? Probably not.
At the
yes!
I tried to resist the 47th rehash of this thread, but... too late...
Within a commercial environment, the organization has to be
fairly convinced that their better mousetrap is going to work,
in order to fund it, productize it, document it, sell it, and support it.
This process will
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
design, its security, scalability, breadth of
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:24 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of
implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about
the quality of the design, its security,
Keith Moore wrote:
The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might
refuse to change protocols which are already deployed.
This already happens to far too great a degree. People keep arguing
that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize
exactly
My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running
Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats
Running Code.
On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit
I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more
reviewed than the TCP/IP stack.
At the very least, running code is an empirical proof that an
architecture _can_ work.
Rgds,
-drc
On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
My faulty recollection is that in our game
The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might
refuse to change protocols which are already deployed.
This already happens to far too great a degree. People keep arguing
that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize
exactly what they have already
IMHO, running code gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so
forth. running
16 matches
Mail list logo
