*>
*> I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
*>
*> - this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
*> - some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
*> - we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it
*> - the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
*>
Harald,
Here is one more to consider: maybe it is outside the mainstream of the
Internet architecture. [Optimizing to leave IP out of the stack and do
direct L2 communication certainly SOUNDS like a retrograde step to me,
too. Twenty years ago I was arguing with a UCLA professor, who
insisted that IP was too much overhead and that he needed to do direct
LAN transmission to get adequate performance for his distributed file
system. He eventually figured out the fallacy, because the product
produced by his company had the IP layer in place. Have we forgotten
these lessons?]
There is an infinite number of variations on the technology that the
IETF COULD develop, and for every one, there is some vendor or set of
vendors who would love to be able to sell sanctioned boxes. That does
not mean it is in the best interest of the community or the technology
to develop them all. I believe that the IESG needs to say NO more
often. I know that's tough, but that's why we chose such excellent
members of the IESG.
Bob Braden