Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 04 December 2007 17:29 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbaV-0007PL-Hx; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:29:39 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbaU-0007O6-Nd for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:29:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbaU-0007MY-CW for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:29:38 -0500
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([2001:638:708:30c9:209:3dff:fe00:7136] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbaT-00019l-Tp for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:29:38 -0500
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from localhost (maildrop [134.102.201.19]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lB4HTTj3011908; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:29:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3F673E84-8B16-4E1C-AB68-27A7EB3DEB35@tzi.org>
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20071204164243.GA23212@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:29:28 -0800
References: <20071204164243.GA23212@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Dec 04 2007, at 08:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> That's a completely new argument for me, and a strange one. AFAIK,
> there is no general rule in the IETF that the IETF must have "change
> control" over the specifications it uses. Otherwise, we would never
> used standards from very closed SDOs like ISO or IEEE.

There is no rule.

However, past experience with ASN.1 has created enough scars in this  
community.
Using a base standard that is a moving target, in control by people  
who don't care about our needs, is a problem.

XML is *not* a moving target.
ASN.1 was.  Worse, it was in the control of tool vendors who were  
living off changes to the "standard" and increasing complexity in  
order to sell upgrades and keep a high barrier to market entry.

Exercise to the reader: Where in this picture is XSD?
(Hint: Whose interests/which forces shape this specification and its  
evolution?
Hint2: The existence of an insurgent direct competitor with strong  
support by large parts of the community is an indicator that there  
might be something interesting to find in this space.)

All that said, I'm not sure that XSD actually is that much of a moving  
target (1.1 notwithstanding).

Gruesse, Carsten