Re: Last Call: 'Procedures for protocol extensions and variations' to BCP (draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions)

["Robert Sayre" <sayrer at gmail.com>]

On 9/6/06, Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> Of course it's useful to be able to run SMTP, HTTP, etc. over other
> transports for special purposes.  But a distinction needs to be made
> between "SMTP specification" and "how to send Internet email", and
> between "HTTP specification" and "how to make web resources available
> to the public and how to access them".

I don't think we disagree, and both specs say "usually over TCP" anyway.

> However the utility of many applications is dependent on there being
> a large number of servers that arbitrary clients can talk to, and in
> those cases too many degrees of freedom regarding which stack to use
> degrades interoperability.

The IETF doesn't have the ability to remove any degrees of freedom.
The IETF can increase the number of dependencies to the point that
there will be lots HTTP-Over-Foo specs, and lots of duplication (and
variation in non-transport areas). The IETF can also provide
compelling solutions like TCP/IP so that most implementers never
consider anything else.

I suppose I would phrase "too many degrees of freedom" as "nothing but
poor standards". Provide an adequate solution that's simple enough to
be ubiquitous and you get critical mass.

--

Robert Sayre

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf