--On Friday, May 31, 2024 14:06 +0000 lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Am I the only one who remembers massive public corporate > commitments to ATM and B-ISDN in the 1990s? > > But then the CCiTT and ITU-T were already heavily invested. The > IETF has never had the same sway. Lloyd, I do. I also remember massive public commitments to OSI as a principle and various elements (standards and Recommendations) of it a decade (or more) earlier. But there were at least two (additional) differences from the present situation and considerations about it. (1) By the time those commitments (and press releases) were made, there were general claims that the there were finished specifications. Whether those making them thought they were true was another matter: I remember conversations with a few people who were involved with the public announcements but who privately expressed doubts as to whether the specs were really ready and workable. Having versions of some of those specs that were widely hyped and endorsed only to be replaced by partially incompatible versions a few years later when the early versions turned out to be impractical. But, in each of those cases, there were specs. They might have turned out later to be incomplete or unworkable, but there were specs. I think part of the concern here -- which I am not nearly as concerned about as some others have been-- is that a significant public commitment was required before the work had actually started. In any event, I believe that either of the two alternate phrasings Murray suggested yesterday eliminate whatever problem might exist. best, john > On Monday, May 20, 2024, 12:23, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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. > > Companies don't work that way. > > > Companies do not make public, future commitments for implementing > standards. And when there are attempts to get them to, they > waffle and evade. > Also, I believe, the IETF has wisely never tried to impose this > burden. > 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. > > Because that is the practical effect of what's in the charter. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social > >
