Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

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

 



On 12/02/2013 10:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/29/2013 12:22 AM, Roberto Peon wrote:
The only reason to specify a must-implement is to increase interop; if
mandating a codec does not increase the amount of interop, why do it?


If the base specification does not provide enough information for basic interoperability, what is the benefit in standardizing it?

An alternative that I believe has already been mentioned is to standardize /both/, but separately.

Under two different names, which then lets the market decide on whether either will succeed.

Letting the market decide amongst competing choices used to be something the IETF did more commonly. One of the more colorful examples was SNMP vs. CMOT.

I prefer to remember (not fondly) SNMPv2U vs SNMPv2*.

What the market told us at that time, *very* loudly, was that there would be no massive deployment of a properly secured version of SNMP until the IETF reached a decision.

The IETF eventually reached a decision (SNMPv3). I don't know if it eventually mattered that much; SNMP's grand ambitions had been overtaken by events.




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