On 7/6/2013 5:52 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > > IETF transport focuses on maintaining its existing standards; that's > my point. It's not really set up for experimental work not directly > related to those standards. >
I'm not really sure how TSV could be setup any better to do this type of work. It could be a matter of opinion how "directly related" the experimental work is. For instance, CONEX is built on ECN, MPTCP is built on TCP, and RMCAT is building on RTP ... but all are such significant developments that they can't be classed as simply "maintenance". In Berlin, TSV has 2 BoFs planned in Berlin which are not jst maintenance of existing standards (TCMTF and AQM). Clearly, there are also important existing protocols (TCP, SCTP, etc) that a lot of TSV energy goes into maintaining, but that's certainly not all that we do. The community focuses on what it chooses to, by individuals (and companies sponsoring them) investing time and energy into the WGs and drafts that they have shared interests in. For some experimental things, that can be difficult because it requires a critical mass, and people have to be willing to work together at whatever pace the group adapts. Larger groups will have slower paces. The hope is that we wind up with better specs, less flaws, and stronger interop between multiple codebases as a result of working together, and create a better Internet. Those are not the priority for every protocol development effort, and a lot of people have good reasons for doing things on their own. This does not signal a problem with the IETF. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
