On 1/22/2021 12:57 PM, Ned Freed wrote: >> I'll claim it very much is NOT another reason for the IETF to treat this >> as an experiment. (In effect, that would expand the scope of concern >> for the IETF, which exactly what we should avoid, wrt this realm.) > > Some idea of the overall UX direction is important to the IETF effort > because > it's possible we've specified the wrong underlying mechanism. (Or more > likely, > we need to specify some additional stuff.) > > This doesn't mean we should standardize any of it.
It's gotten deployment, at some scale. It hasn't gotten deployment, at some scale.
Or maybe: It is / isn't being used, at some scale.
That's as much as the IETF needs to know, since that's as much as the IETF usually (ever) looks for.
I would hope for a little more than that. If it doesn't deploy, it would be interesting to know why. Similarly, if it does, it would be interesting to know what additional technical underpinnings could or should be standardized. Ned -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
