Ross,
See inline.
This is not actually correct. The IETF has a very long history of
pushing back on multiple redundant solutions to the same problem. There
are a great many cases of ADs, working group chairs, and others pushing
quite hard to prevent multiple solutions when one would work fine.
I didn't mean to say that the IETF in general allows multiple solutions but I
think it is accurate to say that the IETF has a less than 100% success rate of
preventing multiple solutions.
In the very many previous cases it was not necessary to write a
document because the second (or third, or ...) solution was within the
same standards body, and it was possible to either prevent publication,
or publish the second solution as informational, or publish the second
solution with a disclaimer up front saying some form of "we recommend
this other solution [add normative reference] which is the agreed IETF
standard".
You are making a point on which I picked earlier because it is stated in the
document as well. In case there are multiple solutions, documenting, but at the
same time discouraging the other one has happened before. Why is this not
possible in this case? Make one the default, the other optional with a big red
warning sign.
Best,
Rolf
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf