Interesting points, guys. I agree working implementations should generally lead standards, but I'm more arguing that open standards are vital to creating a healthy Internet ecosystem, regardless of how they're arrived at. To me, open standards are ultimately vital to the Internet's liberating potential.
As far a Lemon's point goes, it sounds like maybe you're talking about HTML? Regardless, though, you can argue that browsers built the Internet, the Apache server built the Internet, etc etc. I think we can agree that having HTTP as an open standard allowed browsers to talk to servers, though, and that the ability to do that unleashed the wave of creativity that has become the World Wide Web. To me, that just clearly would not have happened if there weren't an open protocol for everyone to implement. Is that really a controversial statement? Today, I think we need standards to allow any computer to connect to any other regardless of network configuration. We have them on paper in SIP URLs and XMPP URLs (I think they're URLs??), but they're just not as widely adopted as they could be, possibly because the standards are weak, but also possibly because demand for them hasn't reached the tipping point. -Adam On 9/20/07, David Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm astonished, but I actually agree with Lemon on this one. > > > > HTTP was largely invented by a single guy, Tim Berners-Lee, by improving > upon the best ideas from previous systems **without attempting to be > compatible**. He also wrote the first browser and server, and the first > websites. He also founded the W3C. > > > > Tim published his HTTP spec in 1991. Mosiac came out in 1994. Internet > Explorer in 1995. > > > > It wasn't until 1996 – five years **after** the web was already born, and > well after it was mainstream – until the IETF got around to standardizing > HTTP 1.0. > > > > If anything, HTTP is the prime example of how implementation must **lead** > standardization, and that the IETF shouldn't bother trying to invent by > committee, but rather find and standardize the best of the existing > solutions. > > > > -david > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Lemon Obrien > *Sent:* Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:58 PM > *To:* theory and practice of decentralized computer networks > *Subject:* Re: [p2p-hackers] Best NAT traversal options > > > > >> but HTTP enabled the vast majority of what we call the Internet. > > > > text over tcp? it's the browser that built the internet, they just used > http cause that's > > what the first browser was written to render. Ever since, they've > continually tacked on different kinds of crap to make it perform better; > anyone remember the "tag" wars between microsoft and netscape; look who won. > in fact, microsoft thrawts, changes, impeds, rolls-it's-own, standards all > the time to keep developers in line. > > > > don't get hung up on standards. > > *Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote: > > All valid points, Kerry. I want to be clear, though, that I'm not arguing > the IETF protocols are technically superior to homespun solutions. In some > cases they are, in some cases not. I also agree they typically take more > time to implement, often significantly more when, as you say, you have to > pull in another 100 RFCs to get the functionality you want. > > I am convinced, though, of the power of interoperability. I go back to > HTTP all the time and have pretty much beaten that argument to a pulp, but > HTTP enabled the vast majority of what we call the Internet. It's certainly > not the most technically dazzling protocol out there, but the fact that it's > a standard allowed everyone to talk to each other and for everyone to build > creative services on top of it. > > I really think the reason we haven't seen a similar flourishing around > some of the newer protocols is that they're still too new and not as well > understood. As the web continues to mature, I expect the need to > standardize on some way of doing a bunch of these things (NAT traversal, > media exchanges, etc) to grow more apparent. > > Heck, I could be wrong, but that's my reading. > > -Adam > > On 9/12/07, *Kerry Bonin* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Thought I'd toss in my two cents on IETF vs. what most of us are doing, > since I deal with standards all the time, and regularly interact with some > well funded research groups that play in the same space. > > IMHO one of the ways in which the IETF protocols are far less interesting > in practice is their desire to use many standard protocols together as the > 'correct solution' instead of stepping on each others turf and trying to > combine them. As listed below - STUN + ICE + SIP + ... Add the complexity > and ambiguity of the specifications, lack of quality, unencumbered reference > implementations, and contrast it with the elegance possible if you simply > learn from these protocols and assemble your own that borrows the best of > each. > > I faced this same dilemma when building my current transport protocol > engine - I needed DOS resistance (client puzzles) right up front, ECDSA with > one and two way cert exchange, session key management, encryption + MAC, all > over UDP with parallel virtual channels with different delivery options per > channel ranging from unguaranteed to ordered/guaranteed and with delivery > notification options. Add NAT management on top (STUN, relays, ect.) > > Do you know how many IETF protocols I would had to bolt together to get > most of that feature set, and how big and complicated the resulting codebase > would be? And a simple requirement like client puzzles up front breaks most > standards, in any case, as does a simple requirement to operate over a > single random port number. > > This is one of the biggest reasons why most of us roll our own. The IETF > groups are performing great research in their niches, but the protocols > themselves are rarely useful outside of their testbeds. On the other hand, > they make great reference reading, to see what use cases and solutions the > researches have documented, especially when those use cases match data we've > collected from the field. > > Kerry Bonin > > > David Barrett wrote: > > I disagree with Michael's assessment of the motivation of IETF > participants; everybody I've met appears to have the best of intentions. > > > > My concern is the real world always seems like an unwelcome guest in IETF > discussions, and I constantly feel like an ass for harping on things like > data, implementations, actual use cases, etc. > > > > Regardless, I'm eager to hear your (forgive me) real-world results > implementing the IETF P2P stack (STUN/ICE/SIP/etc). The proof is in the > pudding, so let's eat! > > > > -david > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Adam Fisk > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:11 AM > *To:* theory and practice of decentralized computer networks > *Subject:* Re: [p2p-hackers] Best NAT traversal options > > > > Right. I forgot I'd seen you over on some of those lists. I'm surprised > you participate if you think it's all about commoditizing the competition or > gumming things up, though. Which one are you doing? Joking joking. > > No, I agree the IETF has problems, but some standard emerging out of the > p2p hackers list sure would scare me a lot more! > > -Adam > > On 9/5/07, *Michael Slavitch* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For those that need help with that, try this: > > http://www.google.com/search?&q=slavitch%20IETF > > On 9/5/07, Michael Slavitch < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I know about the IETF. Google is your friend. > > > > > > On 9/5/07, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Do you know many people who work in or with the IETF? Have you worked > with > > > the IETF? I'm sincerely asking, because I would be surprised if you > had and > > > continued to hold your views. They make decisions by "taking a hum" > for > > > Christ's sake -- similar the yeahs and the neighs (sp?). These people > are > > > the enemy? To me, it's a miraculous example of cooperation amongst > > > frequently competing interests. > > > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/07, Michael Slavitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > "The IETF is really not so different from this list -- a bunch of > > > > people getting together to make stuff work." > > > > > > > > Not so sure about that. > > > > > > > > The goal of participating in a standards body to either make things > > > > work to commoditize the competition or gum things up so that they > > > > never work, are horrendoes to implement, thereby creating barriers > to > > > > entry that only you can exploit. > > > > > > > > Look at IMS, for example. > > > > > > > > How easy is it to get ICE working, and I mean >working<, not > "working". > > > > > > > > How long has it taken to develop and finalize? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > p2p-hackers mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > p2p-hackers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Michael Slavitch > > Ottawa Ontario Canada > > > > > -- > Michael Slavitch > Ottawa Ontario Canada > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] <[email protected]> > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > You don't get no juice unless you squeeze > Lemon Obrien, the Third. > > http://www.tamago.us > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > >
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
