Fernando said:
"May I ask what is the point of bothering publishing specs if they are
going to be violated at will *within the same organization thatpublished the specs*."
[BA] The point of publishing specifications is to make them available for evaluation and potential implementation. It's a contribution to the "marketplace of ideas". As noted in RFC 5218, the imprimatur (e.g. the standards status or stream) has little influence on acceptance. Some widely deployed specifications are Standards Track, others are Informational. In practice, factors such as the availability of reference implementations have more influence on deployment.
This levels the playing field - a single person (or small group) can design a new protocol and put out an open source implementation, with a very good chance that the work will be evaluated and succeed/fail on its own merits, regardless of what "the experts" might think of it.
So if you take issue with a particular approach, offer up your own alternative, or articulate the reasons why it is a bad idea.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:58 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27/2/20 19:43, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Fernando --
>
> "the proponents have argued that "we have implemented it,
> and the industry wants it" -- as if we just have to rubberstamp what
> they have done."
>
> [BA] The IETF has no enforcement authority, so that vendors have the
> ability to ship products implementing IETF standards in whole or in part
> - or not at all.
Agreed. The problem here is that it's an *IETF* working group
rubber-stamping what a vendor did. *That* is the problem.
May I ask what is the point of bothering publishing specs if they are
going to be violated at will *within the same organization that
published the specs*.
As noted by Jinmei here
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XZ_D_cfPNNzXpi4_ZbuTidMTo4k/>
, I believe not only are we just rubber-stamping stuff, but also I
believe that our processes are being circumvented.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
