@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social: 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. ...

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:03:10)
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.

...


---Replies---

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:05:34)
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 existed first, and the specification came much later.

...