Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt]

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

 



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

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