- From: Condry, Michael W. <condry@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:01:12 -0800
- To: jg@pa.dec.com, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: jg@pa.dec.com, Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Jim- You get the star from the content cowboys. Michael At 12:45 PM 11/28/2001, jg@pa.dec.com wrote: >You missed at least one: > >6. Many of us old-farts are strong, opinioned know-it-alls who think that >what we've done applies to everything, and that if the other guy just >understood things as well as we did, they'd do it our way, whether it >be X, or MIME, or HTTP, or (fill in you favorite protocol you are expert >at here).... It is a rare bird who has dealt with more than one application >protocol in detail, much less one built for a relatively wide range of >applications to use. > >(I say this only half tounge in cheek, and that I carefully put myself >into this catagory, though I note that IETF developed apps protocols are >typically for one vertical application (or codification of outside effort), >and not a generic protocol framework). > >The young guys with a problem don't necessarily get heard, unless your >job is to listen to lots of different people building applications. >And those people don't go to the IETF right now. > >More seriously is to elaborate your .4: to build such a protocol framework, >you need participation (at least at some level) horizonally across the >IETF, when it is vertically organized. > >And I think development of a protocol framework would need to be mostly >outside the IETF until a pretty concrete prototype and running code had >been produced, to avoid the other problems you note. Arguably, this is >already happening, in the XML community. But as things are currently >running, it will be too late for the IETF to influence the outcome, >as far as I can tell. > > - Jim > >-- >Jim Gettys >Cambridge Research Laboratory >Compaq Computer Corporation >jg@pa.dec.com Michael W. Condry Director, Network Edge Technology
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 16:03:13 UTC