Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:34:32 +0200

> The internet wasn't designed by committee.  It was built by a series of
> remarkable individuals.  Nobody's under any obligation to follow their
> example.  But I suspect the most successful among us will.
>   
All of the proposed protocols would fail the "widely deployed" criteria.

So, tell me what this all means for the work in this group. You guys 
could stop the work in the group, wait 5 years and see which one of the 
proposals is widely deployed and then get the "winner" rubber-stamped in 
the IETF.

Would that make you happy?

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:10 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization
> 

Er, none of HTTP, SSH, DNS, FTP, IRC, POP, SMTP are widely deployed?  Uh...

> Would that make you happy?

This isn't about my happiness, and it's not even directly about P2PSIP (this
was cross-posted from another list).  It's about HTTP and whether it came
out of a committee.  It didn't.  HTTP, like most others, was designed and
initially implemented by an individual and then later adopted and refined by
committee.

You're welcome to ignore or apply the lesson however you like.

-david

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:39:48 -0500

While I would not dream of trying to channel any of you guys...

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>

> Er, none of HTTP, SSH, DNS, FTP, IRC, POP, SMTP are widely deployed? 

I read Hannes' point as "all of the protocols proposed IN P2PSIP would fail 
the "widely deployed" criteria".

Perhaps this explains some of the disagreement?

Thanks,

Spencer