Scott,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been concerned on a number of occasions where it has appeared
that in order to get a specification approved by the IESG it would be
necessary to adopt a particular technology being promoted by IESG
members.
I think the last phrase is unfair - if the IETF is putting a lot of effort
into technology Foo, then it's a legitimate question to ask "Why aren't
you re-using Foo?" But we do have as a non-criterion:
o Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit
problems outlined in Section 3.1. In other words, disagreement in
preferences among technically sound approaches.
As I read this, it would be legitimate for an AD to ask
Did the WG consider Foo, and if so, have good reasons for
rejecting it in favour of Bar?
and illegitimate to say
I like Foo more than Bar, so I'm blocking this.
If we agree on this, some wordsmithing may be needed.
Brian
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Limiting the number of deployed solutions should be done based
on the operational experience/market forces, and not by ADs/IESG
pushing for a particular solution.
Yakov.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf