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

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Josh Cohen (Exchange) <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:31:32 -0800
Message-ID: <BFF90FB6CF66D111BF4F0000F840DB850E75DD48@LASSIE>
To: Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org>, moore@cs.utk.edu, "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Faltstrom'" <paf@swip.net>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:lmm@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:52 PM
> To: moore@cs.utk.edu; Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Patrik
> Faltstrom'; Scott Lawrence; discuss@apps.ietf.org; Peter Ford 
> (Exchange)
> Subject: RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
> It seems like there are two contradictory things being requested:
> a) Proposed Standard is too hard, let's have something like
>    <small>temporary possible maybe proposed</small> <em>Standard</em>
>    so that we can ship code based on poorly written specs
>    and let our marketing department say the "temporary possible
>    maybe proposed" part softly and the "standard" part loudly.
> And I don't think we need to accomodate the marketing departments
> that want to call something "standard". For decades, there
> have been successful companies shipping networking systems
> without the benefit of calling it "standard". The value
> of the standards process is to create specifications of
> lasting value.
Larry, this is pure flamebait and its implying ridiculous things.
You know me, Alex, Yaron and the rest of us.  We are far
from marketing people.  For the purposes of this discussion
I could care less about the marketing labels of standards.
The point here is about INTEROP, not marketing labels.

Again, if we want to do X over Y in an interoperable fashion
we need a forum to work it out in an open way.   
(Substitute your fav APP and protocol for X and Y respectively).

Please dont cloud this discussion with FUD about intentions
which are irrelevant.  Shame on you..
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 22:23:03 UTC

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