- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:30:07 +0000
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
In message <CAOdDvNr0PQFWm8qg7oz1tmAS3qaJK9O8fWkqoUJR9sqP+RwX1g@mail.gmail.com>, Patrick McManus writes: >> I keep hearing this argument over and over. Is the goal just to finish, no >> matter what? > >Of course not. But finishing is critically important. Absolutely, but the quality of the result is far more important than some arbitrary deadline. >An open standard is the output the process is judged by - and if it can't >produce that in a timely fashion then this forum has failed. It has also fails if the produced standard is not good enough. >We have spent almost 2 1/2 years vetting and tweaking a pre-existing >technology in an open forum. That's certainly one way to look at it. My view is that the WG forged ahead on an urealistic schedule and the wrong prototype, and is still not finished pull weeds and still has basic issues to resolve. Here is a cautionary tale of bad standardisation: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/crypto-review/documents/dualec_in_X982_and_sp800-90.pdf Issues #2, #3 and #4 (last pages) are clearly relevant to this WG. And if the editor is burned out, we should find another, rather than publish whatever he burned out over. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 20:30:32 UTC