On 6 Jan 2007, at 17:07, Adam Fisk wrote:
Furthermore, I think you're overglorifying the IETF protocol
stack. I mean, if it were truly as great as you say it is, why do
all the most innovative products avoid it like the plague? Perhaps
the problem lies closer to home than they'd like to admit.
I probably am overglorifying it. I think there's an impending
backlash against all these clumsy, essentially proprietary
protocols becoming standards, though. HTTP and HTML really started
this whole ride. Their simplicity -- the ease of interoperation --
was really the key. To me, breaking interoperability is an all to
frequent design mistake.
I would be interested in trying to take a P2P protocol through the
IETF policy process.
I think it should be something like BT - quite simple in terms of
implementation, but with a
good usage history. Using the whole IETF stack isnt necessary to get
approval, eg using
http - a case could be made for not using http but it might lose out.
Of course if the
ietf protocol wasnt interoperable with BT (and the divergent BT-like
protocols)
it might not be successful. But having any P2P protocol ietf approved
would be a
very good step. It wouldnt help anyone in the short term.
justin
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
