David, I agree with your argument. My point (obviously not properly conveyed) was that I would prefer if *new* efforts would be turned into "running code" and the lessons learned be applied to the drafts. While implementing, you detect a lot of inconsistencies...
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David B Harrington > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] Forward compatibility > > > Rainer wrote: > I am an IETF freshman. Anyhow, I often read that the IETF was driven > by > "rough consensus and running code". I say "was", because my impression > is that this is no longer the case. I would prefer it were... > > While the IETF has increased its theoretical discussions, I think a > major part of the problem the IETF faces today is "running code". The > problem is that implementors insist on **backwards** compatibility > with **their** running code. Backwards compatibility is fine when > there is a great deal of commonality between existing implementations. > As Rainer has pointed out, that just doesn't exist. > > We need to focus on **forward** compatibility - defining a standard > that implementors can move forward toward so there is increased > commonality, vendor neutrality, and interoperability. > > If we keep trying for backwards compatibility to a wide range of > incompatible implementations, then we might as well go home now. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
