+1
john
--On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 06:11 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<patrik(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se> wrote:
On 11 okt 2011, at 22:53, Ross Callon wrote:
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.
Correct. We are not perfect.
I had four "proposals" for chat protocols when I was Apps AD.
One of them was NOT XMPP which now later seems to be what
people use.
My take is that:
- If there is one proposal for a standard, it is "enough" for
that proposal to be "technically sound"
- If there are two proposals (or more), i.e. a situation where
the market is to choose between the multiple proposals that
more or less solve the same problem, there is an additional
constraint, and that is that the proposals do not interfere
with each other
So if one have more than one proposal on the table that all
move forward, they must be technically sound AND also not
interfere with each other.
This 2nd requirement is something that is not as easy to
resolve as people might think.
And specifically (we see in the MPLS case), the "bandwidth" of
the liaison connection between SDOs is not high enough to
guarantee this. We learned that the hard way between W3C and
IETF.
Because of that the liaison coordination is only to resolve
what SDO is managing the multiple proposals. It can not handle
the synchronization between proposals.
And this to me is a key issue the whole MPLS discussion. It is
just plain wrong to try to manage all variants of multiple
flavors of ice-cream across SDOs. And why I strongly have the
view I have on what has gone wrong.
Patrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf