-----Original Message-----
From: ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
[mailto:ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com]
..
So, you must be a packet creationist:
Um, are you deliberately trying to be insulting?
No, just a feeble attempt at humor. Your example of IPng is interesting
and perhaps worthy of examination for the IETFng planning. The forced
selection process of IPng was painful, and did create scars. The IETF
decisions were overturned for a decade by the use NATing rather than
IPv6. The market and fielding of real solutions is the final selection
process not the IETF. And, as Phill pointed out there are other forums
and de jour standards processes.
You are correct that the IETF creation of 'standards' is not a Darwinian
based. It's a tightly controlled cabal that attempts to create the
'best' solutions. However, the end product of the IETF's work can be
viewed as entities in a competitive environment where the RFCs compete
for ecological space in the market.
In this context, it's better to have an open forum or two to create and
cooperate on solutions. It's better to start and make forward progress
than to not start at all.