On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:39:34PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Personally, I have not seen it work well or be generally perceived as
> anything more than a waste of time to ask well specified and widely available mature open
> source work to come and be republished as an Independent Stream Informational RFC.
Do you have examples of this ? mature FOSS (attempted to be) republished as an informational
RFC where the process was unhelpfull ? Curious.
It's more a question of motivation. For instance, there are ecosystems built on top of thrift and gRPC
or protobufs. What is the motivation for folks to come and go through the Independent Stream process?
There's an assumption that the folks who want to use a non-standard technology are the same as are
appropriate to write an Informational RFC.
I'd prefer not to give an example here, but while it has come up, the main issue is folks not even bringing or
thinking to bring re-use.
I would consider rsync an ideal example why i am disagreeing:
I think its very mature in theory, but every time you dare to
interoperate different versions, not even to say different implementations,
i was often in for a fail. Not to mention ASCI-8859-UDF issues and the like.
Then that would be feedback from the WG not to build on top of it - or to require a better specification.
This is a judgement call from the WG, not an anything goes.
Aka: I would be happy if there was a good spec for rsync, and even more
so if there was an attempt of implementations to become compliant with a
good spec.
Sure - but still not the protocol police :-)
Regards,
Alia
Toerless