W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

Re: IETF split? (was: HTTP Extensions Frameworkstatus?)

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199912071944.LAA11020@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
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
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 14:48:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:06 UTC