Re: GNOME Enhancement Procedure

> The whole page is at Although I'd be
> more interested in cases when the IETF process didn't work out well.

When there are intractible political problems. This has included things like
[Several companies] trying to do dirty tricks to get its own way. Also on the
crypto stuff it fell apart badly because of basically illicit US government
interference including some of the contributors being agents.

Technically it works very well, but there are safety values Gnome doesnt have.
Notably 'this is outside the scope of this committee' isnt in any way final,
instead it means 'by all means go start another project to write a different
RFC if you think its important'

> implement at all" would be a valid reason against some IETF specification,
> but "it's not possible to implement until our next release" would not. And

Umm vendors have tried to delay final approval until their next release 8)

The IETF is not all roses and some of the IETF participants put Michael Meeks
to shame in the 'whats diplomacy' department. I'm not convinced its that
relevant a model alas

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]