On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:Does not follow. Having a description of the protocol, as it was deployed, documented is usually a good idea. Having it as standard, not necessarily so. There are a great many protocols which have "established a legacy base" which are not suitable for standardization.
> This protocol has established a legacy base, as in it is going to be a part of the infrastructure we have to work round for decades even if Apple abandon it tomorrow.
>
> It is now futile to attempt modification of the protocol except in limited ways that do not impact the legacy base.
>
> Therefore we need to have a description of the protocol as a standard used on the Internet.
Internet Standards are what run on the Internet.
The reason that I keep proposing process and document changes is because I would like the IETF to be more effective in playing a leadership role in Internet Standards making.
But take a look at the events in Egypt and Tunisia. The events that are beginning in Lybia and Bahrain. The Web was originally designed and deployed in the aftermath of the year of miracles, 1989, the year the Berlin Wall and the iron curtain fell.
The Web is bigger than one person or one organization.
So expecting to control its growth or development is as futile for us as for anyone else.
Which if people think about it, is rather a good thing. If the IETF had the ability to control the development of the Web, the tyrants and the dictators who are murdering their own people as I write would be attacking the IETF as well.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf