> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx] > Except if you can grab a BCP. I am not sure you are actually > right. You certainly know a few cases. The lack of an IETF endorsed spec from MARID did not stop Microsoft from holding an industry gala two weeks ago in NYC. Nobody commented or appeared to care that the spec was not ratified. Think of it as a recess appointment. > The problem with IETF is there is no architectural common vision. No, that is its strength. The Web was not part of the IETF common vision. SSL was diametrically opposed to the IETF security vision. > IETF and IANA have a defacto monopoly on the architecture. No they don't. W3C and OASIS are both more influential as standards bodies at this point, particularly once we get above the session layer. The URI identifier architecture introduced in PICS and since adopted in XML eliminates the need for fixed registries like the IANA. That was the whole point, to eliminate the control point. I did not want a central registry of PICS censorship schemes. Of course other people did, mostly the people who used euphemisms like 'content selection' rather than censorship. > For example the whole IPv6 issue is that they did not understand that > their current deployement (2001) is disposable. The failure to get the deployment stakeholders round the table to ask the question 'what will it take to make this happen' is in my view the root cause. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf