for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's
generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an
effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies.
I don't accept the ideological case for or against free markets.
My point here is limited to the case in which a working group is unable
to come to consensus over two disjoint proposals and each group refuses
to compromise with the other.
Agreement would certainly be the best outcome in the case where the
differences are due to personality issues. But there are also cases
where one proposal is in fact distinctly inferior, usually because the
adherents are bought into some obsolete dogma or other.
For example there is no way to negotiate a compromise between die hard
adherents to the end-to-end security primciple and proposnents of an
edge based security system. The two architectural views are entirely
incompatible and cannot possibly be reconciled.
What I have observed in these divisions is that it is actually quite
rare to have two factions of implementers. What is much more common is
that you have a group of folk who are building something and another
group of rock throwers who won't build much more than a bunch of
prototype code that only worksw with their own system.
In other words letting the market decide comes down to who has the best
code and the best deployment strategy.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf