Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter

Curtis Villamizar <> Tue, 26 September 2006 10:56 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSAbs-0007Y7-9t; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:56:20 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSAbr-0007W3-Bv for; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:56:19 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSAbq-0004Fi-26 for; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:56:19 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8QBfahl000247; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:41:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
To: Fred Baker <>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:10:59 PDT." <>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:41:36 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: "James M. Polk" <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

In message <>
Fred Baker writes:
> >> Any effort which requires the whole world to agree before getting  
> >> started will never get started.
> So will any effort which requires the people who care and are  
> prepared to implement to write requirements documents, but precludes  
> them from actually doing the work in favor of someone else who has to  
> be convinced.

That didn't parse very well.

You can write all the requirements documents in the IETF you want.
Real work happens when someone is sufficiently interested to fund real
work, meaning create some running code and run it on a real network.

The protocols that move through the process most quickly have an
urgent need and are implemented and often deployed before hitting RFC
status.  The IETF WG then reconciles differences between the initial
implementation and requirements that were either overlooked or
discovered in initial deployment.

"Interest" in something doesn't mean willingness to provide lip
service (write documents).  We have an overabundance of that
throughout the IETF and other standards bodies.

If interoperability is required and for anything of importance in
networking it generally is, then the providers and vendors work
together (in theory at least, though it is obviously an imperfect
process) and make things interoperate.

Insistance on standardization before implementation just results in
bad protocl standards with bells and whistles not needed and missed
real requirements.

Maybe IEPREP already has too many spec writers and not enough
implementors motivated by deployment intentions.


ps - If something languishes for 6 years, either there is too little
real interest even if the spec was finally published or in very rare
cases it got implemented and deployed based on a draft and there was
lost interest in a bogged down IETF process.

Ieprep mailing list