I don't know about other people, but it smells a bit to me like "this standard is too complicated, how hard can it be?", and then people implement their own thing and end up reinventing pretty much the entire standard, only in a nonstandard way.
I forget where I read this, but someone once talked about how a new standard can't just be "better". Instead it has to be _a lot_ better and probably even bring a lot of really good new stuff to the table, otherwise not enough people will bother switching to it.
This is pretty common in government. We have way too much duplication between projects so somebody gets the bright idea to replace all the standards with one standard but it doesn't get traction and basically doesn't get used.
Making it standard is a lot of hard work while you make a lot of people argue and act in a way that makes sure that some part of the thing will work everywhere.
Standards exist on the real world, you can't just define them into existence without doing the work.
Agreed! It's kind of fascinating that a better standard hasn't emerged yet, but not surprising given that each one is developed in isolation by a different organization.
Definitely a lot of room for improvement. Curious if anyone has thoughts about the best route to getting such a standard / protocol in place: it seems like a lot of stars would have to align, but would be invaluable nonetheless.
reply