1996-04-11 - Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: jsw@netscape.com
Message Hash: 42f1d4ac8cbeb72f28b68ece40b5ffe9a3da2ca0172fce82178323baa69e8398
Message ID: <199604111516.LAA20869@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <316CABB9.27F1@netscape.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-11 22:32:21 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:32:21 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:32:21 +0800
To: jsw@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun
In-Reply-To: <316CABB9.27F1@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <199604111516.LAA20869@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jeff Weinstein writes:
>   Given that the IETF has no "official" (whatever that means) sanction,

I have no idea what that means. The IETF exists. Who would sanction
it? Why would that sanction matter?

> what would prevent any other organization from coming in and trying to
> take over their turf?

Nothing, except that all the people who "count" in the internet,
a.k.a. "The Community", pay attention to us. If we become irrelevant
to the community, we will fade away, which is as it should be.

> I saw an article today (sorry, can't remember where) that suggested
> a brewing fight between IETF and W3C over future HTTP and HTML
> standards.

I think way too much is made of that. Most of the same suspects attend
both meetings from what I can tell, and the IETF isn't really under
the illusion that we control HTML.

Perry





Thread