My perception is that often in the IETF, protocol and process design
works best that codifies and regularizes what is already being deployed.
I disagree with this characterization.
If a protocol that is already being deployed is well-designed, IETF
generally does a good job of documenting it and cleaning up the nits.
However just because a protocol is already being deployed does not mean
it is a well-designed protocol, and IETF generally has a difficult time
fixing poorly-designed protocols that are already being deployed. In my
experience it is rare that a protocol that is already being deployed is
well-designed - usually they are lacking in scalability or security or both.
IETF has more trouble designing protocols from scratch than if there is
already a well-designed protocol that it can use as a starting point.
But IETF can often design a better protocol than one that is already
being deployed. Not surprisingly, it takes longer to design a new
protocol than to tweak a good protocol that already exists. But it
takes even longer to try to fix a poorly-designed protocol.
The general circumstances under which IETF has trouble designing new
protocols are either or both of these: 1. When there are substantial
conflicts between major industry players about strategic direction in
that area. 2. When the working group set up to design this protocol has
poorly-defined or inappropriately-defined scope.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf