Re: bettering open source involvement

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 08 August 2016 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB6212D09B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3ANjx_QgS3Z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69F3412D1AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E457C8FC4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:43:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQ8SPj5Zzes4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:43:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:6d05:1baa:74c7:253] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:6d05:1baa:74c7:253]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E24EB7C8F20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:43:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAA93jw71iUPb4vuFK5sMqo_CQEE9HSkchc9988=98FKUsv_1sw@mail.gmail.com> <579A6B76.70303@alvarezp.org> <ADB1E7FD-115C-40DF-97BA-618CFBB1C0EF@cable.comcast.com> <52FD39F9-6362-4C1D-BCCE-40A4DFC65EA0@netapp.com> <701c724f-efe2-6591-0378-12db4609adab@gmail.com> <28848.1470152567@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <0a6e3a1a-1a4b-900e-0a07-e9843f32235f@gmail.com> <e1e4b48b-6ff5-22a3-168b-5d28137b3b1a@cs.tcd.ie> <m2k2fy1d66.wl%randy@psg.com> <4FA85A01-08C4-4A96-8DB2-EA618528A966@dukhovni.org> <01Q3FDTG8D8U00005M@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <e72c0994-57b7-30c2-b2e8-a02f0dab266e@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:43:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01Q3FDTG8D8U00005M@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5BH_Rtg2X8_gQoLF86DDnluvWH4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:43:19 -0000

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 ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com:
> 
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 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
>