OK, thanks for clarifying. I was keying on things like "vast majority of
companies (vendors)”, "unless we are talking about hobby implementations in
some private code base or open source” [1], and "Mr X says "Oh in my spare time
I will implement this””, but I accept that wasn’t your intent. Rebutting that
was the main reason I came here so I’d say we’re done.
Although, to react to the rest of your note as to the exact structure of the
charter and what the gate is or isn't good for — it's not my charter and so I'm
not going to try to justify it in detail. I do think “the perfect is the enemy
of the good” might apply here, though. I think Bron Gondwana had a solid point
in [2] ("let's give this a couple of years and see if it has a chilling effect
or not”, etc). Sometimes we should be brave enough to try new things. Maybe
this is one of those times?
—John
[1] The exception proving the rule and all that sort of thing.
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GNNnb5p0cAB6wIYjMOSS46r_v9I/
On May 23, 2024, at 3:36 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi John,
It is not that I am disparaging any individual commitment or open source - not
at all.
What I find bizarre is:
A) to commit to anything in the dark .. meaning before adopting as WG document
where the document and enclosed within itself protocol by design could
drastically change
B) to hold the original commit as a valuable promise and not to insist on
interoperable implementations instead.
Kind regards,
Robert
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:21 PM John Scudder
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
I see. What I most wanted to challenge in your message was the implication
(reinforced in your note I’m replying to now) that the only meaningful
contributions are made by “companies (vendors)”. I don't agree, nor do I agree
that open source et al should be disparaged. I guess you don’t find that
“convincing enough”; if so, we shall have to disagree on that.
—John
On May 23, 2024, at 3:07 PM, Robert Raszuk
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi John,
Yes I recall seeing this email, but it did not sound convincing enough to me.
The fact that Mr X says "Oh in my spare time I will implement this" to me does
not seem to be of any measurable value. At least not so much to put this as
requirement for adoption in the WG charter.
Much better would be what we do in IDR that the draft should not progress to
IESG unless the proposed standard has been tried out in any interop testing and
interop report has been posted on the wiki page.
Thx a lot,
R.
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:19 PM John Scudder
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
Your comments have already been addressed, most recently in Pete’s message on
Monday
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NAa6PvOvdPy8SmYtX1IxQ1Jj-pc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NAa6PvOvdPy8SmYtX1IxQ1Jj-pc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GKul0z6xuuzCnKlxpocnxhnu24YTSPe-yezafWU4_EtT-3heNA9Ryz2zHMA3kexyMDBtot4BM2D-JQ$>).
To add, relative to your final paragraph about “hold responsible", there are
many parts of our process that rely in part on the expectation participants
will act in good faith, this would hardly be the first.
—John
On May 23, 2024, at 11:52 AM, Robert Raszuk
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The reality in vast majority of companies (vendors) is that commitment to
implement something or not are no longer being driven by engineers.
They are driven by marketing and product management teams who rarely attend
IETFs.
And even if there some commitment today tomorrow based on new field
requirements it may change.
With that I am really puzzled what this entire discussion is all about and how
anyone (presumably chairs) are going to hold responsible person X for her or
his "commitment to implement" (unless we are talking about hobby
implementations in some private code base or open source.
Thx,
R.
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 4:59 PM Dave Crocker
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 5/21/2024 9:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Before diving into this thread, I think it's important to underscore
> that we're not taking anything away here.
The premise of that assertion is that having this working group will not
alter the decision-making by those managing the other paths. Given
human nature, that seems optimistic, at best.
> The only constraint being established is: If you want this particular
> working group to process your work, there's a specific minimum you
> need to meet.
And that minimum is both onerous and, as formal charter requirements,
lacking any historical precedence in the IETF.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bbiw.net__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GFF-Xpl7WNYMmXdLazOIdEVSW9KL6Xm09CiJknmnTsLxtfXC3LtsMJQ9a9clI1i1sEcaD8iZEfE_fg$>
mast:@[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
