Harald - this is indicitive of the higher level problem with how things are
run today -
I would propose that the IETF needs to embrace a variant of the SNMP
solution that you have listed below. That the IETF allow as many protocols
to be worked on that are correctly filed and meet the filing criteria for
I-D's or RFC's.
It is not the IETF's management team's place to make any decisions as to
which end-user protocols are adopted and pressed forward, and its time this
issue was resolved to create a level playing field for all concerned.
More inline below -
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
To: "todd glassey" <todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...
--On 15. april 2002 19:55 -0700 todd glassey
<todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net> wrote:
Harald - what is the IETF's policy on this question.
How many of any one protocol will the IETF allow to be push through to
standard. And the IESG? Is it that there is only one standard for each
type of protocol or what?
This is an official resuest,
Since this is an official request asking for what the IETF will allow, I
think it is best to ask the IETF community. Thus the CC to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
The obvious (but meaningless) answer is "as many as needed".
Speaking for myself, I think it would be foolish of the IETF to create a
hard rule about this question - the circumstances may differ a lot.
I dont think the IETF can have soft rules - they are too easily abused by
individuals. The whole idea behind running this as an open standards
organization is that it is supposed to offer the exact same opportunity for
all and by your response you have painted the IETF management as a group
actively involved in a conspiracy to determine who's protocols are advanced
and who's are not.
If that's true then its patently insane IMHO since I believe that it clearly
opens the IETF to litigation.
Consider a few "multiple protocol" scenarios the IETF has faced recently.
- In the IPNG discussions, we decided to pursue IPv6 only.
- In the SNMP vs CMOT discussions, we decided to pursue two approaches.
One died, the other remains.
- In the OSPF vs IS-IS discussions, we decided to pursue two approaches.
Both survive, with little apparent harm to the community.
- In the SNMPv2 discussions, we decided to pursue one, then to pursue
multiple and "let the market decide", and then to pursue one again.
- In the case of CR-LDP vs RSVP-TE, we seem to be pursuing two.
One seems to be winning, but the market has not decided yet.
- In the PGP vs S/MIME discussions, we decided to pursue two, arguing
that they have different fields of applicability. Both survive so
far, but neither has become ubiquitous.
When we pursue multiple approaches, there is one very hard question -
which
is when we take the decision to drop the pursuit of one approach.
Sooner or later the answer is usually obvious. But the cost of pursuit is
substantial; it would often be advantageous to concentrate on one as soon
as one is clearly superior to the others.
I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic.
Harald
PS: The mail being responded to was addressed to the chair of the IETF in
his IETF role, and is thus a "contribution" under the terms of the NOTE
WELL statement you've all seen.