| |||||||||||||
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfIPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfPosted May 3, 2007 2:42 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself by imcdnzl Parent article: IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Did you read the third paragraph in Paul Vixie's reply? He's telling Theo why his rant was a little misguided... the second and more important error is to assume that ietf is relevant. if you look carefully you'll see that the SSH protocol has been shaped far more by your OpenSSH effort than by the ietf or any commercial vendors, and SMTP likewise more by Sendmail and Postfix than by ietf or any commercial vendors, and DNS likewise more by BIND than by ietf or any commercial vendors. in the old days, ietf consensus could make or wreck an idea. these are not those days. compared to the power and relevance of open source software, ietf may as well be declared dead for all the relevance it has at this stage.I have to agree. The IETF seems to have fallen clean off the leading edge. Ajax? Bonjour? SSH? There's fantastic innovation in networking and the IETF is largely absent. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing.
(Log in to post comments)
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 4:30 UTC (Thu) by imcdnzl (guest, #28899) [Link] The IETF often, but not always, standardise things after the event. For example Bonjour is in RFC 3927 to quote one of your examples. Ajax is not a network protocol, which is what the IETF is about. They do take care of a number of underlying standards though which Ajax relies on.
They are also continuing to refine IPv6 which I think most people will agree is necessary and also they are working on new protocols such as DCCP (RFC 4330) which aims to do a better job than UDP in many areas.
Yes they can be out of touch but so can kernel developers. I think we need to work to bridge the gaps (I'm contributing to both).
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 10, 2007 10:13 UTC (Thu) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link] The IETF often, but not always, standardise things after the event. And I'd argue that's the proper role for a standards body - never make a standard without at least three interoperable implementations, and preferably don't even bother with a draft until there's at least one. Standards are not for innovation. I've been involved with a protocol designed by a standards body which did not understand this, and it is a train wreck.
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 12, 2007 5:39 UTC (Sat) by jwalden (guest, #41159) [Link] Quick correction for people following the RFC number: DCCP is RFC 4340.
|
|||||||||||||