Longer or more meetings?

[Eric Rescorla]

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com> writes:
> I'm not sure that we have a shared concept of what "success" is...
> Everyone keeps talking about "relevance".  Now, while it is obvious
> that we don't want to work on things that are irrelevant, how are
> we defining "relevance"?
> 
> It seems, from observation, that we define "relevance" as
> "commercial success".  And, it is obvious to me that a large
> corporate gorilla has a lot more influence on corporate success
> than a one-man consulting firm...

I think you've missed my point. It's not necessarily the case that
having large vendors have the most input into a protocol is the best
way to make it a success. While the vendors may have the most
to gain or lose, that doesn't mean that they have the most relevant 
expertise. It seems to me that part of the IETF theory is that 
protocol quality is key to deployment. In many cases, that quality
is best injected by independent people with specific expertise.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr@rtfm.com]
                http://www.rtfm.com/