Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

>> OK, this is the sort of argument that holds no water. Convince us  
>> that
> something is useful and correct. Pleaase cease claiming that
> implementations define standards.

It's rough consensus and running code, Joe.

(Who died and made you king?)

>> Want to now what the industry did in response? -- The have ignored  
>> our
>> consensus.
>
> We need to continue to pull in the direction of standards,  
> regardless of
> what implementers do.

Well then, head on back to the happy perfect world of OSI, which  
implementers ignored.


> If you care that much about the implementations,
> then change them. It'd be more productive than simply documenting what
> has been implemented instead.

Implementation experience is an important input to developing and  
refining an IETF standard.

The IETF standard can't be defined wholly on paper theoretically de  
jure, or wholly
in implementations de facto. There's a meeting in the middle - hence  
consensus and code.

I know the M in TCP stands for minor, but really - why are we even  
bringing up standards arguments, when an informational doc would  
suffice?

L.

DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/

<http://info.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[e-mail]>