RE: Status of MARID WG?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] 

> 
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 
> > There are many RFCs that have reached draft standard status 
> that have 
> > never been deployed.
> 
> I don't think this is true; in this or any other WG.  Your 
> claim runs counter to the requirements for Draft Standard 
> status. Do you have an example RFC demonstrating this?

Various parts of DNSSEC have reached draft standard (or are about to) with
no sign of deployment, IPSEC, IPv6, SMIME, PGP, various parts of PKIX the
list goes on.

All you need is two interoperable implementations and a userbase noticable
to the IETF. The fact that 98% of the users of the internet will never use
it directly or indirectly does not matter.


> > There are many protocols that have never progressed beyond 
> > experimental or informational that are real defacto standards.
> 
> This has certainly happened, but I think usually this is due 
> to sloppiness by those WG chairs to take care of the business 
> of the working group and move drafts along.

Or the WG consensus choose a different protocol to the market.

Nobody in the IETF is elected, nobody is accountable. The inevitable
consequence of that situation is that nothing that the IETF does can ever
rise above the level of a personal opinion.


> It is hard to say what the mental model of many participating 
> in the WG was.  However, it is not the case that to "obtain 
> IETF standards status, then get deployed" is "in practice 
> only the way forward after a protocol is reasonably mature".  
> The point of the RFC process is to define clearly a protocol; 
> test, analyze, and fix flaws; and move forward based on 
> consensus that something useful is being achieved.  It is not 
> a rubber stamp on "reasonably mature protocols".

The folk who were stopping at nothing to filibuster the proposal thought
that stopping Sender-ID in the IETF would kill it in the real world. In fact
nothing of the sort could ever happen.


> Some people are bitter about that result, and suggest that 
> the IETF is therefore going to be "left in the dustbin".  
> That isn't the first time that claim has been leveled, nor 
> will it be the last.

It may well be one of the last opportunities the IETF gets. Other forums
elect their officers and run their WG is a responsible and accountable
manner.

> > There is a high probability that the blogosphere will converge on 
> > whatever ATOM decides, but the IETF could not have created the 
> > blogosphere by simply ratifying an RFC.
> 
> The "blogosphere"?  Is that like the punditariat?

The political weblogs that largely drove the last election campaign.