Anyone's bright idea is fully vetted by the working group, first, and by
the IESG, at the very least, before it goes to Standards Track. Many
bright ideas die on the vine, many others take years and years to make
it through the process, and still others that do make it through never
get adopted in the marketplace.
http://www.ietf.org/glossary.html
IP Multicast is a good example. There are many protocols associated with
IP Multicast that never were adopted. There are many that finally made
it through the process but died on the vine anyway. You might want to
read through RFC 5110 to see examples of the latter.
What you seem to be missing, Craig, is that "anyone" can indeed write an
Internet Draft. However, these drafts are only active for 6 months, and
then they expire. The only way to keep them alive is to have CONSENSUS
from the working group that they deserve to be developed.
I have seen ATSC subcommittees recommend a change in the ATSC
standard, only to have the ATSC Board overrule them.
Yup. Same with the IETF. There may be differences in degree, I don't
know, but not as much as you might think.
Sorry Bert, but the ATSC is a VERY POOR example of how a
standards group like this should be run. This is not a casual
observation from an industry pundit - it is based on real-world
experience working on ATSC subcommittees, and watching the power
that a handful of companies have over the standard.
Compared to what? People have also complained about the more powerful
contributors to the IETF. Again, not having participated in ATSC working
groups, I can't make a direct comparison. All I can say is, what you
describe is certainly does not sound unique.
