Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. The basic point is that people are ignoring the standard because it > is hard to implement.
Given the perpetual arguments on this list, I am not surprised by the reaction of the people participating in the UK consultation: techies should buckle down and implement it properly. But my experience in the IETF is that it is normal for engineers to work around or ignore awkward requirements when the cost of complying is too high. See the thousands of IETF documents that never lead to a deployed system. And successful standards usually follow a successful implementation, rather than the other way round, mainly because there's no substitute for practical experience when it comes to ironing out the interop and deployment difficulties. So I wonder how to effectively communicate the surprisingly large effects that seemingly small technical details can have on the success or failure of a standard. Especially to non-technical people who are rightly impressed by the fondleslab in their pocket and wonder, if phones can be so smart, why is time so dumb? And to technical people who have less experience of the mind numbing futility of standards development. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ Trafalgar: Cyclonic in northwest, otherwise mainly northerly or northwesterly 5 or 6. Slight or moderate. Showers in northwest. Good. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
