Re: bettering open source involvement

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

I've heard people objecting to clear *improvements* in a protocol on the
basis that their less capable variant is already deployed in the field,
and it's too much work to update.

Sometimes that's just a fact; at other times, it elicits the
"rubberstamp" argument.

Den 06. aug. 2016 21:29, skrev [e-mail]:
> 
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> if you write a draft and have running example code, you are accused to
>>> be just coming to the ietf for a rubber stamp (cf. sidr).
> 
>> The Postfix code for DANE in SMTP was developed in parallel with the early
>> drafts of RFC767[12].  I don't recall any "rubber stamp" objections.  Perhaps
>> that was an exception, but at least that objection is not universal.
> 
>> Work on the Postfix code began in Mar/2013 and on the new drafts in May/2013.
>> Stable code in Postfix 2.11 was released in Jan/2014, and the RFCs were finally
>> published in Oct/2015.
> 
> Going way back, there were at least three implementations, two by two of the
> specification coauthors, developed in parallel with the MIME specification. 
> 
> Since then I've always tried to code in parallel with the specifications I'm
> involved with.
> 
> None of this was in any way secret - in fact I've often stated that my position
> on such-and-such was the result of implementation experience - and I don't
> recall ever getting any flak for it.
> 
> Hopefully this experience isn't unique to email protocols.
> 
> 				Ned
>