From: Dave Barr (barr@visi.com)
Date: Wed Oct 06 1999 - 22:35:19 CDT
Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> But I have an uneasy feeling that the last weeks we have made very
> little progress, but we are on the verge of making regress. Things
> that I at least thought there was a consensus on since years back
> is being questioned, for instance UTF-8 in Newsgroups.
That's bound to happen, especially as things drag on. That's one
reason I took the 'cut-and-run' approach. If we can get the minimal
standards doc out, we can get something good done, and then people
can build from that.
I'm not sure specifically why the UTF-8 thing popped back up. I
consider the issue of internationalization closed: UTF-8 it is.
> Since this is an open forum, everyone may join in and share his
> view. While very democratic in a way, it is also very ineffecient.
> We will never arrive at anything this way.
yes, it's too bad. The Big Dork who plans IETF meetings conflicting
with USENIX events doesn't help either.
> I don't have any other experience of this kind of work, but in my
> opinion, in the end there needs to be a smaller group that makes
> the big decisions and says this is the way it will be. Then the rest
> of us may comment to improve details, pointing out inconsistencies
> etc.
In a better world, if USEFOR started out and was run from the start
the right way, then yes. I'll only say that having a small core is
a lot more important in protocol development than it is in protocol
standaridization.
> That doesn't mean to say that this list should be closed down, but
> rather that the chairman should set a frame within which we are to
> keep the discussions.
I think it's safe to say in this case we can go onto the next section.
I haven't seen anything in 6 that we need to stop and take a closer look
at.
--Dave