Re: [dispatch] War of the Worlds (was Re: I-D Action: draft-malas-dispatch-sip-egress-route-00)

Not to argue your general tone, but you do realize that most of those things you list were actually generally profitable and successful in their time, right?  Sure their time may be past, but that doesn't mean they were failures.  I mean I used to be in the IP routing world before coming to voip, and SONET was the predominant long-haul transport which actually connected and formed the "Internet" in the 90's and early 2000's.  I dunno what it is mostly today, but I bet there's still tons of it out there.

And it's not like there weren't plenty of ultimate-failure companies building Ethernet switches or IP routers as well.  Or even HTTP browsers.

-hadriel
p.s. and sadly H.323 ain't dead yet either - for some reason it seems to be alive and kicking in certain regions of the World, and in certain niche market segments.

________________________________
From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:19 AM
To: Dean Willis; Adam Roach
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org; Daryl Malas
Subject: Re: [dispatch] War of the Worlds (was Re: I-D Action: draft-malas-dispatch-sip-egress-route-00)

This really sums up the enigma why the IETF should do work that contradicts every principle of the Internet architecture and its engineering.

It may be useful to remember the  _solid_   track record of the  "stagnant world"

 *   OSI
 *   X4.00 mail
 *   IN
 *   AIN
 *   ISDN
 *   SONET/SDH
 *   ATM
 *   BISDN
 *   H.323
 *   current re-incarnations such as PSTN/SIP and other (avoiding flames here)...
How many companies have disappeared building this stuff? Layoffs. Capital destruction.

The other enigma is the tolerance to associate the IETF with the reincarnations of these failures.

>I have long speculated that perhaps the best thing we can do is punt the "stagnant world" stuff to a different forum.
>I seem to recall many times suggesting that SIP should just be moved to the ITU so we can get on with building the Internet.
>I'd happily add ENUM to the same bucket.

Well said.

Thanks, Henry

On 3/16/10 5:49 PM, "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

I disagree profoundly with characterizing Rosenberg's Modest Proposal as an
appropriate summary of the issues, as it gets the analysis precisely wrong.
It proposes completely abandoning the vibrant world as a lost cause, and
embracing the stagnant world as the only path forward. This isn't just
allowing collateral damage to the vibrant world for the sake of expediency
in stagnant world solutions -- it's a suggestion that we nuke the vibrant
world so it doesn't keep annoying people trying to develop stagnant
solutions.

I have long speculated that perhaps the best thing we can do is punt the "stagnant world" stuff to a different forum. I seem to recall many times suggesting that SIP should just be moved to the ITU so we can get on with building the Internet. I'd happily add ENUM to the same bucket.

The problem is that we might wake up one day and realize that the Internet has been turned off, and all we have left is a stagnant backwater of telecommunications boundaries established by fat-and-happy politicos eager to preserve their own domains.

The alternative, perhaps, is to embrace stagnation. Then add chlorine.

--
Dean
________________________________
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch