Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Miles Fidelman <> Thu, 17 April 2014 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC5A1A0188 for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtEssxALMc3T for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFCF1A014B for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A680BCC0BD for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:13:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id E8sBAuS44F1J for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9285CCC099 for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:13:02 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "" <>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:13:16 -0000

Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> run them through the IETF process in parallel.
>> If a WG can't agree on which problem(s) it want to solve, then there is a problem, no?
>> And not sure if Open Source is the solution, unless everybody says: "here is my view of the problem, let me provide some code for it"
> 	That is precisely how things work in open source; people huddle together to solve a problem and write code to solve it. There is not much "management" needed here, nor are there any hard requirements to write problem statements, architectures, frameworks, etc.. before that process of code construction can begin.  That is what I am getting at: we need to get back to writing more code around here. Code that is used to build some goal. That is ultimately what defines what can be done.  As we iterate though that process, we arrive at the goal.

Well, wait a minute.  That might be how small projects work - but not 
big ones, with large impact - like say the Linux Kernel, or Debian, or 
Apache.  Those projects have policies, procedures, configuration control 
processes, authorized committers -- it's not like a change makes it into 
the Linux kernel without going through multiple levels of review.  Not 
to mention processes for bug reporting and patching.

And... I expect that, in the aftermath of Heartbleed, a number of open 
source projects are going to be taking another look at release processes.

Miles Fidelman

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra