Standards bodies ossify over time. In Europe in the 80s/early 90s, X.25 comms, full seven-layer OSI stack and X.400 email was the "real thing", standardised by

Standards bodies ossify over time. In Europe in the 80s/early 90s, X.25 comms, full seven-layer OSI stack and X.400 email was the "real thing", standardised by OSI, mandated by government procurement and implemented by telcos. This was "commercial grade" networking and email, with TCP/IP and SMTP being derided as "academic". The IETF were the scrappy, pragmatic upstart. "We believe in rough consensus and working code". I've not followed many later IETF standardisations, but I did take a passing interest in CAP (calendar access protocol) a few years back. (since there wasn't a good open source calendaring stack (not sure there is now, either, tbh). It seems to me as a distant observer/potential implementor, CAP would be very hard to get started on. It mandated the use of otherwise unused-at-the-time BEEP [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3080 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3080] (for good reasons - the same good reasons OSI mandated their full 7 layer stack...), embedded (unspecified parts or SQL92 (without a grammar!)) and seems to me a daunting prospect. It looked to me as though they were really saying "everyone doing CAP has to really have an SQL backing store with a particular schema and you pretty much have to pass these queries through to it". So I see OSI->IETF->W3C as a progression over time. Not sure where to now... [I'm sorry if I'm harsh to the people who put a lot of effort into CAP. I didn't contribute and so I don't really have the right to criticise, but from a potential implementors pt of view, it seemed daunting. I'm also not tracking any current IETF work, so I know I have a narrow view and am likely wrong in many ways. update: ...and I've just skimmed the final RFC and they do have a grammar for the SQL subset. I recall that that wasn't present in the drafts available at the time.]