- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:44:37 -0800 (PST)
- To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Jacob Palme wrote: > > My suggestion is that APPS have their meeting one week and > all other IETF groups the next week. People can then stay > for two weeks if they want to cover both areas, which I > expect IESG members will do, but the load on the single > weeks will be less. > As others have pointed out, this is logistically infeasible. Right now, I'm not even getting to current IETF meetings, much less larger cuts out of life. I believe the overlap is essential: we've seen what happens when a "killer app" gets deployed without anyone understanding what is going on. The hallway conversations again and again educate both apps and infrastructure people as to the problems presented by protocols. I gave alot of thought some years ago whether doing HTTP in W3C say, would make more sense, and finally concluded that it would not: the feedback and conversations with people getting the packets from point A to point B were necessary. The big issue the IETF does have in APPS is one of scaling: as editor of HTTP, the big issue I saw was delays caused by insufficient cycles in AD's to read and comment on specifications. These caused unnecessary many month delays. There are ways to "fix" this: another Apps AD, or some reader mechanism, or trying to make sure that Apps AD's can spend full or nearly full time on IETF business. I suggest these long before doing application protocol standards work in other venues. - Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys Technology and Corporate Development Compaq Computer Corporation jg@pa.dec.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 14:48:59 UTC