$QNT $BTC

I saw a few of their meetings with the IETF and it seemed like they were always getting buttblasted by the council?
The correct process is to get adopted by the market and then become the de facto standard, not write the standard beforehand and then hope you get adopted.
saged

That’s complete hogwash.

Military/Government adoption takes precedent then markets conform naturally.

Look at TCPIP NTP on earth and in space. Exactly the aforementioned procedure.

You don’t care about facts of course.

You are driven by emotional tribalism and scarcity.

kek baggies

Great question! The **Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)** doesn’t unilaterally decide what becomes a standard. Instead, it provides a structured process for developing and refining protocols through **working groups**. These groups, made up of industry experts, researchers, and engineers, collaborate to propose, discuss, and refine technical standards. Once a protocol gains consensus within the IETF, it can be published as a **Request for Comments (RFC)**, which may eventually become an official standard if widely adopted.

Regarding **SATP (Secure Asset Transfer Protocol)**, it is currently being developed within an **IETF working group** Core](datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-satp-core/) - Internet Engineering Task Force](datatracker.ietf.org/wg/satp/about/). However, just because a protocol is developed within the IETF doesn’t automatically make it a **de facto industry standard**. Adoption depends on whether companies, developers, and the broader tech community choose to implement and use it. While Quant is involved in SATP’s development, its success as an industry standard will depend on real-world adoption and interoperability across digital asset networks.

So, your skepticism is well-founded—being developed within the IETF is a strong step toward standardization, but it doesn’t guarantee widespread adoption. It will be interesting to see how SATP evolves!

Would you like to dive deeper into how IETF working groups operate?

You're absolutely right to question that idea—it **doesn't** work that way. The IETF helps create and refine **networking and internet standards**, but it doesn’t control which technologies become dominant.

Take **AWS (Amazon Web Services)** as an example—it was developed entirely by **Amazon**, not through the IETF. AWS set its own standards for cloud computing, APIs, and infrastructure, which became widely adopted because of **market demand, innovation, and industry buy-in**—not because the IETF declared it a standard.

In reality, many major technologies—from **cloud computing (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud)** to **messaging protocols (MQTT, Kafka)** and even entire **programming frameworks (React, TensorFlow)**—become standards organically based on **adoption, usability, and industry influence**. The IETF plays an important role in defining protocols like **TCP/IP, HTTP, and TLS**, but it doesn’t dictate what companies or industries adopt.

So, your skepticism is well-founded—while **IETF involvement can help** formalize protocols, true industry standards emerge **from adoption, not just from technical committees**. Would you like to explore how AWS influenced cloud computing as a whole?

The ai slop has spoken

While Chainlink’s CCIP focuses on cross-chain messaging primarily within crypto ecosystems, Quant’s SATP is a globally recognized standard under ISO TC 307, designed for secure data transfer across all networks including legacy systems, CBDCs & DLTs

Overledger’s institutional grade infrastructure ensures interoperability with regulatory compliance, scalability & enterprise integration, making it the go-to choice for connecting finance, trade and global payments

wtf does chainlink have to do with this

also wasn’t ccip developed with swift and a number of banks? Why wouldn’t it be positioned to work with legacy systems?

Didn’t Chainlink compare itself to TCPIP (an IETF standard)?

And received a lot of backlash on linkedin for doing so. People said it was bereft of integrity.

the IETF doesn’t dictate what becomes a standard. Stop deflecting, my first two posts weren’t about chainlink anyway. Also quant has done a number of things with questionable integrity, like the swift parking lot debacle

“Doesn’t dictate standards”

Meanwhile:

TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol): RFC 793 (TCP) and RFC 791 (IP) define reliable data transmission and addressing, the backbone of internet communication.

HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol): RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1, updated by RFC 7230-7235) governs web data transfer; HTTP/2 (RFC 7540) and HTTP/3 (RFC 9114) improve performance.

DNS (Domain Name System): RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 outline domain name resolution, mapping human-readable names to IP addresses.

SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol): RFC 5321 specifies email transmission across networks.

IMAP (Internet Message Access Protocol): RFC 3501 enables email retrieval and management on servers.

POP3 (Post Office Protocol version 3): RFC 1939 allows email retrieval from servers to clients.

TLS (Transport Layer Security): RFC 8446 (TLS 1.3) secures data transmission, building on SSL.

IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6): RFC 2460 (updated by RFC 8200) expands IP addressing to support internet growth.

BGP (Border Gateway Protocol): RFC 4271 manages routing between autonomous systems, critical for internet scalability.

OAuth 2.0: RFC 6749 standardizes authorization for secure API access.

QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections): RFC 9000 enhances performance for HTTP/3, reducing latency over UDP.

NTP (Network Time Protocol): RFC 5905 synchronizes clocks across systems, vital for distributed networks.

SIP (Session Initiation Protocol): RFC 3261 enables VoIP and multimedia session setup.

WebSocket: RFC 6455 supports real-time, bidirectional communication for web applications.

ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol): RFC 792 handles error messaging and diagnostics (e.g., ping).

Among hundreds more.

and there are even more examples of tech they had no hand in creating or managing. the fact that certain standards emerge through them doesn’t mean they dictate what becomes a standard. They also didn’t create tcpip

Chainlink compared themselves to TCPIP... Can you see why that is embarrassing?

can you stop deflecting or are you incapable of staying in topic

If the IETF doesn’t define standards, why do chainlink compare themselves to an IETF standard while defining themselves as a global standard?

Answer that and we can talk. Until then, don’t waste my time.

me: trying to argue why ietf involvement doesn’t necessarily make something a standard, especially in emerging tech that they had minimal to no involvement in creating

(You): BUT WHAT ABOUT CHAINLINK

I didn’t bring up chainlink at all. Stop deflecting you stupid faggot shill. have fun talking in circles in your garbage thread

This is biz not a therapy group.

okay moron

Filth

Another retarded thread by this quant moron who doesnt understand how the IETF operates. They dont pick the standards, their purpose is to maintain and update.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ip9_iQKsV28

Someone tell this moron that SDX was a part of the swift trials and is using CCIP.

We can see you id hopping on the unix terminal

Lmfao

Illiterati lol

No you cant, this is my first post, retard. The lying you do is insane, the IETF didnt create TCP/IP. SDX is not going to abandon CCIP for SATP. They have never even publicly tested it.

and who's we?

Yang Gang

Why bother with these threads? All you do is lie? You deflect every major counter argument like how the IETFs purpose is to maintain and update not to dictate standards.

The question is, why are you bothered by these threads?

So says im annoyed? I love owning you everytime. Again, your picture means nothing, why dont you read what they actually do instead of reading the google summary? Your arguments are so bad.

Didn’t Chainlink compare itself to TCPIP (an IETF standard)?

They hinted at the idea of profiting off a global standard, which TCP/IP failed to do.

And received a lot of backlash on linkedin for doing so. People said it was bereft of integrity.

Some black woman in the UK lol Probably paid by Quant.

They hinted at the idea of profiting off a global standard, which TCP/IP failed to do

They hinted? You mean he blabbed to Sam Altman and didn’t receive a reply on twitter?

Which university is this photo from?

(Tcpip failed to create a global standard? Whut? Nonsensical.)

ok? lol Literally what twitter is for.

They failed to profit from it, can you even read?

Who failed to profit?

No one directly profited from the invention and widespread adoption of TCP/IP, as it was developed by the U.S. Department of Defense as part of the ARPANET project. These people then handed it off to IETF, which was created for this purpose lol

Lol LOL

Do you even know what the order of IAB is?

lol

LOL