> > To believe this, you must believe that large vendors > are unable to ship a > product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp. Stephen, It does increase the acceptance of a solution specially when customers are concerned about inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier networks. > You must also believe > that this IETF rubber stamp is only available to > large vendors, and only > large vendors will benefit from it. I didn't say that. I said RELATIVE benefit derived (actual in terms of increased sales, or perceived in terms of prestige and goodwill). We don't have fix tax per person for all rich and poor even though everyone uses the same federal/state services?. The question is what are the alternatives way to better fund IETF activities and control (controllable portion of) rising costs? > Given that the IETF does not recognize organizations > at all, it is hard to > agree with this model. The process is specifically > designed to prevent this > from happening, and I think the current IDNA > argument shows that it's > difficult to railroad a WG with a bad idea. Agreed - i didn't say that it is easy to push bad idea through any working group. But it is easier to build a momentum around for an idea if you have many people coming from the same organisation simply because you know them, and you work closely with them (though many people will say the design of IPv6, and a lot of MPLS work isn't a shining example of good work, but it is not because of bad ideas, but rather too many good ideas :-)) ==bonney __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/