> On 8 Nov 2018, at 14:49, Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8 Nov 2018, at 11:41, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> Perhaps the IETF needs to admit defeat here... >> >> my memory is that xmpp was originaly brought into the ietf to be rubber stamped. > > Being Area Director of the time, my memory is the following: > > Step 1: > > - Work on coming up with a chat protocol > > - Outcome: four proposals, most interesting based on BEEP > > - People start using Jabber > > Step 2: > > - No agreement, allow all four to become RFCs (I think all four ended up being RFCs, I might be wrong) > > - Discussion with Jabber, that did not want change control in IETF > > Step 3: > > - Jabber people came to IETF and said we can have a good constructive discussion > > - Jabber discussed > > Step 4: > > - XMPP be finished > > So, "rubber stamped" was a bit to brutal expression maybe ;-) > > Jabber/XMPP was treated and was managed the same / similar way as all protocols that at first are dealt with outside of IETF and then brought to the IETF community. A quite successful example I must say. Although the understanding of how IETF works to start with was, also as always, a bit confusing. People often come to the IETF to get their document rubber stamped. They often get a rude awakening. Yoav
