Subject: RE: PDF, Postscript, and "normative" versions (was: Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternativeformats for IDs))

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:36:11 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)

> > Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the 
> observation that, 
> > each time the "we really need pictures and fancy formatting 
> and need 
> > them frequently" argument comes up, the vast majority of those who 
> > make it most strongly are people whose contributions to the 
> IETF -- in 
> > designer, editor, or other leadership roles-- have been fairly 
> > minimal.
> 
> This fascinates me too...
> 
> With experience, I believe most people learn that the strict 
> ASCII format used for RFC's is actually a strong feature of 
> our ways of working. When I wrote my first drafts, I also 
> believed non-ASCII graphics were needed and I made multiple 
> versions (one TXT and one PS) of each draft, but I do not 
> waste my time on that anymore since I have learned that I can 
> manage very well without non-ASCII graphics.

As the editor of the XKMS 2.0 standard, the core document of the SAML
1.0 standard and a co-editor of WS-Security 1.0 I think I can fairly
claim to have made a significant contribution to the security protocol
field.

I think that what you see there is the result of self-selection. I think
it is rather more interesting that of the 20 or so engineers who were at
the core of the Web project but did not have a previous history of
working with the IETF I am one of the very few who is currently actively
engaged in IETF work even though most are still actively engaged in
protocol design work.

Nor is it very surprising that people who suggest that the workings of
the IETF are anything less than perfect have not found leadership
positions within it. The NOMCON process is very effective at excluding
anyone who might be a squeaky wheel.

Either the IETF will become more responsive to the community of Internet
users or it will be treated as damage and routed around. The IETF has
changed significantly in the past few years and I expect those changes
to continue and at this stage it appears to me that the first outcome is
the more likely. We still have to face the fact that the Internet does
not meet user expectations for safety, security or usability. People who
have the uncompromising attitude necessary to succeed in those areas
tend to have uncompromising attitudes with respect to  other issues that
others consider trivial and unimportant such as document formats.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf