It should be easier to get a specification to IETF standard than to start an alternative standards organization.
I think that is still true and tried to convince the OpenID people that this was the case but they did not believe me. The question is priorities and costs. Having a process that is designed not to function imposes real costs and reduces the influence of the organization. On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a > mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist > change there. > > joel > > On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote: > > > > Tony, > > > > I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation > > of the IETF process and > > the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the > > US government > > decided that no further R&D funding was required, since the Internet was > > "done".) > > > > Bob Braden > >> It would work if the overall process were more efficient. Now we > >> effectively > >> go WG I-D to full IS, which is what your eloquent overview of the > driving > >> force notes. If we truncated WG I-D at the common points people could > >> agree > >> to start implementing, and have PS actually document the evolution of > the > >> implementations, we would get back closer to when the IETF was > >> productive. ... > > > >> Tony > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
