On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Salz, Rich < [email protected]> wrote:
> > - I'm not sure what you mean by "enticement". The document status is > by no means an enticement to implementation. > > > > Most organizations have limited resources and cannot implement everything, > and focus on things like standards-track. Perhaps I used the wrong word. > > > > At any rate, I am glad that Google is strongly interested in 6962-bis. I > don’t understand how a mailing list discussion in an IETF WG doesn’t work > well for browser development – doesn’t Google do much work through mailing > lists? – but I am glad you spoke up now. > I'm afraid there's some rather significant misunderstanding about that remark - it was about the notion of 'freezing' the specs, especially without a great deal of maturation. The W3C, for example, is similarly recognizing this in terms of https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards and better captures the tradeoffs. As far as list participation goes, communicating product plans and roadmaps to the IETF is not generally a workmode that the Chrome team does. However, as it matters to the understanding that we are committed to exploring 6962-bis, and believe it provides distinctive value over 6962, I'm more than happy to share that we think this is a solid and welcome forward path, and one that hopefully produces lower risk to the ecosystem than pursuing it as Standards Track without any real world implementation experience or running code.
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
