|
OK, thanks for clarifying. I was keying on things like "vast majority of companies (vendors)”, "unless we are talking about hobby implementations in some private code base or open source” [1], and "Mr X says "Oh in my spare time I will implement this””, but
I accept that wasn’t your intent. Rebutting that was the main reason I came here so I’d say we’re done.
Although, to react to the rest of your note as to the exact structure of the charter and what the gate is or isn't good for — it's not my charter and so I'm not going to try to justify it in detail. I do think “the perfect is the enemy of the good” might
apply here, though. I think Bron Gondwana had a solid point in [2] ("let's give this a couple of years and see if it has a chilling effect or not”, etc). Sometimes we should be brave enough to try new things. Maybe this is one of those times?
—John
[1] The exception proving the rule and all that sort of thing.
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GNNnb5p0cAB6wIYjMOSS46r_v9I/
On May 23, 2024, at 3:36 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi John,
It is not that I am disparaging any individual commitment or open source - not at all.
What I find bizarre is:
A) to commit to anything in the dark .. meaning before adopting as WG document where the document and enclosed within itself protocol by design could drastically change
B) to hold the original commit as a valuable promise and not to insist on interoperable implementations instead.
Kind regards,
Robert
Hi Robert,
I see. What I most wanted to challenge in your message was the implication (reinforced in your note I’m replying to now) that the only meaningful contributions are made by “companies (vendors)”. I don't agree, nor do I agree that open source et al should
be disparaged. I guess you don’t find that “convincing enough”; if so, we shall have to disagree on that.
—John
Hi John,
Yes I recall seeing this email, but it did not sound convincing enough to me.
The fact that Mr X says "Oh in my spare time I will implement this" to me does not seem to be of any measurable value. At least not so much to put this as requirement for adoption in the WG charter.
Much better would be what we do in IDR that the draft should not progress to IESG unless the proposed standard has been tried out in any interop testing and interop report has been posted on the wiki page.
Thx a lot,
R.
Hi Robert,
Your comments have already been addressed, most recently in Pete’s message on Monday ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NAa6PvOvdPy8SmYtX1IxQ1Jj-pc/).
To add, relative to your final paragraph about “hold responsible", there are many parts of our process that rely in part on the expectation participants will act in good faith, this would hardly be the first.
—John
The reality in vast majority of companies (vendors) is that commitment to implement something or not are no longer being driven by engineers.
They are driven by marketing and product management teams who rarely attend IETFs.
And even if there some commitment today tomorrow based on new field requirements it may change.
With that I am really puzzled what this entire discussion is all about and how anyone (presumably chairs) are going to hold responsible person X for her or his "commitment to implement" (unless we are talking about hobby implementations in some private
code base or open source.
Thx,
R.
On 5/21/2024 9:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Before diving into this thread, I think it's important to underscore
> that we're not taking anything away here.
The premise of that assertion is that having this working group will not
alter the decision-making by those managing the other paths. Given
human nature, that seems optimistic, at best.
> The only constraint being established is: If you want this particular
> working group to process your work, there's a specific minimum you
> need to meet.
And that minimum is both onerous and, as formal charter requirements,
lacking any historical precedence in the IETF.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
|
