I second John's explanation of the group. As a vendor, I got involved with the intent of doing new protocols that address known limitations, especially those of ICP. I also think the taxonomy work has been of great value, since apparently as a group, we weren't previously on the same page with respect to terminology and semantics. At this point, most of us are, which means the taxonomy can be finished soon and we have prospects of moving forward as a re-chartered group.
Gary
>>> John Martin <jmartin@netapp.com> 07/29/99 11:17AM >>>
At 10:14 AM 29/07/99 -0400, Patrick McManus wrote:
>I don't really think that's true.. seems to me josh, I, and others felt
>wpad would be appropriate for standards track and therefore
>modification by the working group.. publishing as information appears
>to be a compromise.. not agreement.
Unfortunately this is true in many cases. Like HTTP 1.0, for example,
(Informational). HTML 1.0 is a good example of what happens when the IETF
tries to standardize something which is already deployed: it cant (its
Informational). In this case, even documenting current practice was a
painful *long* exercise. If a protocol comes to the IETF after it has been
deployed then, in its current form, it is difficult for the IETF to change
it and decree this version a standard. The best thing to do is to document
the current state as 'Informational' and move on.
As an aside, it seems that technologies which do get onto the standards
track seem to spend a long time at the 'proposed' stage. I think that in
the case of WPAD, it is best to document it in a public place and move on.
I'm pretty sure the authors of WPAD agree with that.
>As I said in the post. They came from the IETF charter page. To
>elaborate: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wrec-charter.html which
>carries the annotation "Last Modified: 24-Jun-99".
>
>Is there some reason that I shouldn't consider that authoritative or current?
I'll get this ammended. Thanks.
> [..] David Forster, Josh Cohen, Henrik Nordstrom and Patrick McManus
>for their help in defining proxy transparency."
Whoops - apologies :-)
>my comment still stands. A dictionary by itself doesn't help improve
>the state of caching and replication systems. If we build new systems
>using them as a reference basis, that's a different story.. and that's
>where I see the value in them and why I spent and will continue to
>spend my time with them.
We are in agreement. Remember that most of the vendors wanted to get
straight in there and start working on protocol development straight away.
We were explicitly prevented from doing this by the IESG and, to be honest,
making sure we are all talking about the same thing (taxonomy) has proven
to be very useful indeed and, I think, will save us time in the long run.
Speaking as a vendor, and I know I speak for my co-chair, and many of the
other vendors in the group, *none* of us would have got involved in this
excercise if we were not expecting to work on *real*, possibly new
standards in good time. I ask your patience with this initial process until
we are in a position to re-charter. Its just something we have to do.
John
>-Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 654 308 275
Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST