--On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications
> that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented
> individuals, companies and countries around the world. These
> specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to
> facilitate communications among us all.
>...
Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1" or
"IEEE" (at least in the computer and communications areas for
both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The
IETF is not particularly special in this regard.
To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on
an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or
moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify
rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has
decided, repeatedly, that the answer is "no" and "we want to
look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the
tradeoffs". While the part that follows the "no" differs, that
is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others.
If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful
if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard,
repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor
making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and
priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it
does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this
subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus
on a change in position.
Just my opinion, of course.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf