Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> > do you have actual statistics to back that up?
>
>   It's not meant to be an exact number, but it's pretty close to being
> correct, in my experience.

one of my axioms for dealing with the Internet is that people's 
experiences (and assumptions) about what is typical vary widely - no 
single person's assumptions holds true in general.  the consequence for 
protocol standards is that they need to work in the face of a variety of 
assumptions/scenarios.

> > there are better (more reliable, more secure, more effective,
> > cheaper) ways of providing a set of functions at a user terminal
> > than to give everyone user-programmable machines and then have the
> > network insist that they all have a rigidly controlled
> > configuration...
>
>   Yes.  And there are mistakes in IETF protocols that have been
> deployed for decades, too.  What are we supposed to tell the people
> who have billions of dollars invested in their current systems?  "You
> got it wrong, we're not going to come up with a solution to your
> problems."  ?

no, we say "we're going to try to give you an evolution path that 
doesn't break compatibility with the investment you've made in our 
technology".  however realize that the half-life of a computer system is 
pretty short compared to the lifetime of a successful protocol standard. 
 there's more investment in the protocols than in the hardware, and the 
protocols don't generally assume user-programmable machines on 
everyone's desks.  (a few of them predate those days)

Keith


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