Scott,
If IPv8 meets all of the criteria of an IETF protocol it should be
labeled as an IETF protocol. I don't remember the verb "blessed" being
operational in the IETF, perhaps I should reread the RFCs for it.
The point is, instead of people peering into the future in a star
chamber, one can presume that the world is inhabited by rationale actors
and the "right outcomes" will occur.
Let's ask a different question: what is the empirical evidence for "
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."? Is there a
demonstrable case/occasion for this point?
It seems that maintaining the charter to spec-ing and establishing
interoperable Internet protocols should be a guiding principle.
Regards, peterf
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Scott W Brim
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 08:56
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
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.
So you would have blessed IPv8?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf