Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

It should be easier to get a specification to IETF standard than to start an
alternative standards organization.

I think that is still true and tried to convince the OpenID people that this
was the case but they did not believe me.


The question is priorities and costs. Having a process that is designed not
to function imposes real costs and reduces the influence of the
organization.




On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a
> mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist
> change there.
>
> joel
>
> On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
> > of the IETF process and
> > the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the
> > US government
> > decided that no further R&D funding was required, since the Internet was
> > "done".)
> >
> > Bob Braden
> >> It would work if the overall process were more efficient. Now we
> >> effectively
> >> go WG I-D to full IS, which is what your eloquent overview of the
> driving
> >> force notes. If we truncated WG I-D at the common points people could
> >> agree
> >> to start implementing, and have PS actually document the evolution of
> the
> >> implementations, we would get back closer to when the IETF was
> >> productive. ...
> >
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/