On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: 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:
> 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.
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.
Internet Standards are what run on the Internet.
Lots of things run on the Internet that are not standard. 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.
Ideally, IETF's role is to provide advice that helps the Internet and Internet-based protocols work well. Merely blessing things that do not work well is not playing a leadership role.
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.
Control has nothing to do with it. But if IETF doesn't fairly reliably give good advice, its reputation will decline and IETF will become less relevant.
Keith
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf