> The main deliverable of the IETF is documentation, for the purpose of > achieving interoperability, to make the Internet better.
Docs without Code Documentation without available code has led us to use Jabber IM in the SIMPLE WG meetings. Is this a success story for SIMPLE/SIP? Serial Writers Other harmful effects of writing specs on the editor "platform" is the deluge of SIP related RFCs and I-Ds since there is no threshold to stop serial writers. * Does anyone expect developers to read and understand the 100's of documents? * How can the concepts and definitions in a document without code be proven in the first place? By discussion and voting? In Conflict With The Internet Principles Last but not least, supporting commercial products or business plans is not the same as supporting the Internet. There may be actually a fundamental conflict here, for example closed stacks vs. the e2e principle, supporting Internet transparency, etc. It is the reason why all work related to the service provider market, which is important work BTW, should be moved to the ITU-T IMO. These topics deserves however a larger discussion, outside of this list. Enjoy the weekend, Henry On 6/20/08 1:02 PM, "Hadriel Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Henry Sinnreich >> >> 3. The main deliverable of a WG is free software to validate and support >> the >> protocol document and its refinement. If no free software is contributed, >> the WG activity should be suspended. Internet-Drafts not supported by >> freely >> available software (that can be inspected and tried out) and measurements >> cannot be proven right or wrong and should therefore be ignored. >> There is plenty of IEEE and University work to prove this approach, which >> was also the basis for the rise and success of the IETF. > > Since when is the main deliverable of the IETF free software? > > The main deliverable of the IETF is documentation, for the purpose of > achieving interoperability, to make the Internet better. That's it. (i.e., > RFC 3935) Open source implementation is one means to an end goal, not the end > goal itself. > > And as it is, I think some of the extensions in SIP have *only* been > implemented in open source software and never seen the light of day in real > world use even of that open source software. (or in any degree one would > consider "broad use") In that sense, maybe we should only continue work in > things that have seen commercial implementation! ;) > > -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
