On 10/20/22 6:05 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:47:07 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Carsten,
You have just gone where I didn't want to go (at least on-list)
because it might take us into some IETF/IAB political issues
(past and present) but, yes, your students are good at their
work. Some generalizations (with the understanding that a few
details might be close but not exactly right these days):
[big snip - all good points for sure]
We seem to be drifting off the target here. And the graybeards may
remember when ISO-OSI was swamped by TCP/IPv4 and Ethernet.
The big problem is that most people cannot access ISO standards at
any remotely plausible effort and price. Even very large companies
find the expense of maintaining current versions of ISO standards
impractical.
So these standards are specified far more than they are followed.
So, what remedy is practical? In areas of conflict, it may be
necessary to explicitly override ISO, because the world didn't go
that way.
Joe Gwinn
I've been reading this thread for a while now. It seems to me that if a
document from any organization is not publicly available then it
shouldn't be referenced or used at all in the IETF standards process. If
that organization wants the IETF to use it then it needs to make it
publicly available for free. It's okay if someone needs to negotiate
that but it's a waste of time for most people otherwise.
I also don't see why the NTP/TICTOC WG is involved in any of this
discussion as we only deal with UTC and timezones and offsets from
timezones is irrelevant for the group.
FWIW,
Danny
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
