Post
1/
For decades, there has been a debate about what specifications published under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) or community groups (e.g., FEP) are actually for.
Are they meant to:
№1:
Document what people are already doing?
I.e., what some call the cows path.
№2:
When people are doing similar but incompatible things — and you are able to get those people all into a working-group together —
Document the agreement those people made to interoperate.
№3:
Invent something new.
...
2/
An example of №1 is the (now old) finger-protocol. The finger-protocol existed at least 6 years before the first specification about the finger-protocol (IETF RFC-742) was first published.
I.e., the finger-protocol (and the software that implemented it) existed first, and the specification came much later.
...
3/
An example of №2 is the (now old) DVD format.
Prior to DVD, there were incompatible but similar technologies, such as: MMCD, and SD.
The same individuals who were behind MMCD, and SD (incompatible formats) got together (in a working-group) and agreed to interoperate.
DVD was the result of that.
And, the DVD specification(s) documented their agreements on how to interoperate.
...
4/
An example of №3 is ERC-223.
ERC-223 was meant as a replacement for ERC-20. A single person invented ERC-223 without involving all the people who implemented or were using ERC-20.
ERC-223 was largely ignored.
5/
People are of course able to decide for themselves which of №1, №2, and №3 they feel are acceptable scenarios for publishing specifications under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), but —
But, I feel only №1 and №2 are acceptable scenarios.
I.e., I feel that specifications published under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), should be DOCUMENTING not inventing.
...
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
