I think this is part of "divide and conquer" that is
generally argued to be
an useful strategy in the IETF: once we buckle down and start writing
specs, we're documenting one approach, with one set of advantages and
disadvantages, and are trying to prove that *this approach*
is feasible. We
did that to (I believe) OSPF, IPNG after the "pick one"
round, PKIX (vs
SPKI), IM when it was split into SIMPLE and the 2
alternatives (with XMPP
being a late 4th) and so on. Each of these groups could
regard the "what
are the alternatives" question as out of scope.
I think that's a good way to get things out the door in a reasonable
timeframe; I also think that the IETF at the moment lacks
venues for the
(probably interminable) discussions about what approaches to
a problem
exists and whether there are non-chartered alternatives that
are worth
following up - but I think the approach of chartering a WG to
look at one
and only one approach is a reasonable one.
Well said, I agree completely.
pat
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org