Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEE31A019B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 fdc20-_11br4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0251A0135 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p10so10745462pdj.26 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qgSiYmohx/d7VrVY6TjoBiuRSE8X5XSkiIf59MMGB1I=; b=YAvkQCNSsIzPW+k9x6MondbnYKENYnjkQ7a5qNmsJKmt4deKGJgRdta3jRn9a2QgOo uUmQOinOquWkSFxy2tn6BjK5iwYEUBaLwEo38NeeR69B7BPwvsMBjtAiRpNKqNOyr3kM VUymhFGuNmu8xhFPvEZQ2VbYfe0D2HLdBnmUwhaipupeaMvVV09Dc9ls6j+t1+pV+HpH 6NCDty0VteHM3PJIEAoUyaNo3x8tMPNKUtel1xxZyeFxinjAqL4HMDljwAYWlo8GPw9r xOHZjXH+wN3qmqVLJ9ANwMDbaqpjptOm6VrO9wBPzUZHUjyYdsJjJ8TG4lVY7RbcOMNv ms4Q==
X-Received: by 10.68.135.42 with SMTP id pp10mr9312474pbb.58.1397662361735; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (209-193-46-203-rb1.sol.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [209.193.46.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y4sm47655291pbk.76.2014.04.16.08.32.40 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534EA296.20900@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:32:38 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <201404142144.s3ELipR8014504@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <C16CB48C-9462-4514-B675-D750D4DC9357@piuha.net> <534DB785.7040609@gmail.com> <EF72D31A-8134-42DB-B750-D5C3831869EE@tzi.org> <534DC46C.60703@gmail.com> <8962F23C-1486-4F52-AD58-BE64CFBC3B4A@thomasclausen.org> <534E8D3B.7080705@mti-systems.com> <33D51F54-A5A6-42F2-90EC-FE09783BB5A2@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <33D51F54-A5A6-42F2-90EC-FE09783BB5A2@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qowv_-jsA2H41uJbUcybPxS4o58
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:32:46 -0000

On 4/16/14 6:19 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> I think that Spencer's thesis was that it didn't happen because
> "implementing towards something that isn't stable and which expires"
> (and I-D) wasn't attractive, and the bar for std.track was too high,
> so "something with a lower bar, which is stable and archival, but
> which isn't a PS" would be helpful?

I think that the terrain has changed a bit, or at least
that's certainly what the author of the blog post is
suggesting.  Implementation seemed to be de-emphasized
for some period, precisely because of the issues you
mention, but we're seeing more work being brought to the
IETF being driven by implementation (and here I'm
thinking of things like HIP and certificate transparency)
and frankly they seem to go a lot more smoothly in
terms of IETF process, as well.  Chartering seems to to
more smoothly and the work progresses more quickly.
The "open source" question really seems to be more
about collaboration than to do specifically with
licensing.

I'm not sure that the IETF should get more directly
involved with supporting implementation efforts but I
do think that we should recognize that work coming
in that's already been implemented tends to be more
fully-baked and privilege that in some way.  One worries
about that encouraging crappy implementation, but I'm
not sure that crappy implementation is much worse than
no implementation.

Melinda