Dave Singer wrote:
I hear the opposite complaint enough to believe that the truth lies
somewhere in between ("the ietf is dominated by academics who have no
idea what it takes to design, deploy, and maintain large complex
networks"). I only see a tiny portion of the ietf myself, agreed (I
doubt many people see much more as it is so large), but I don't see
reason to be excessively pejorative about the attendance I see. It's
mixed; academics, industrial engineers, writers, thinkers,
implementers, observers, dilettantes, all mixed in. Just like other
standards orgs.
I think that's right. However, what may well be missing in the mix
is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and
live with its limitations and quirks every day. We need to understand
the indirect consequences of our choices: not "can it be coded and will
it interoperate?" but "will it drive service providers and users crazy?"
Brian
At 18:36 +0200 10/08/05, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I think that is a good point. A variation on that theme is that the
IETF is no longer run by people who actually implement protocols. The
relevance and impact of the IETF on what is actually used on the
Internet is marginalized through that change of membership. The
attitude of "That is not how we do things in the IETF" make people go
away.
Cheers,
Simon
C Wegrzyn <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I think a big part of the issue is that the IETF has been taken over
little by little by corporate interests. Before it used to be for the
> "love of doing it". Today it is more for "the benefit of one".
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf