RE: I'm not the microphone police, but ...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]