We'd be very foolish to have a "policy" on this. It all depends on the particular case, and sometimes it's better to let Darwinian selection make the choice. Sometimes (as for IPvN) it is clearly required to make a choice in advance. This is not an official answer. Brian Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > --On 15. april 2002 19:55 -0700 todd glassey > <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > Harald - what is the IETF's policy on this question. > > > > How many of any one protocol will the IETF allow to be push through to > > standard. And the IESG? Is it that there is only one standard for each > > type of protocol or what? > > This is an official resuest, > > Since this is an official request asking for what the IETF will allow, I > think it is best to ask the IETF community. Thus the CC to ietf@ietf.org. > > The obvious (but meaningless) answer is "as many as needed". > > Speaking for myself, I think it would be foolish of the IETF to create a > hard rule about this question - the circumstances may differ a lot. > Consider a few "multiple protocol" scenarios the IETF has faced recently. > > - In the IPNG discussions, we decided to pursue IPv6 only. > - In the SNMP vs CMOT discussions, we decided to pursue two approaches. > One died, the other remains. > - In the OSPF vs IS-IS discussions, we decided to pursue two approaches. > Both survive, with little apparent harm to the community. > - In the SNMPv2 discussions, we decided to pursue one, then to pursue > multiple and "let the market decide", and then to pursue one again. > - In the case of CR-LDP vs RSVP-TE, we seem to be pursuing two. > One seems to be winning, but the market has not decided yet. > - In the PGP vs S/MIME discussions, we decided to pursue two, arguing > that they have different fields of applicability. Both survive so > far, but neither has become ubiquitous. > > When we pursue multiple approaches, there is one very hard question - which > is when we take the decision to drop the pursuit of one approach. > Sooner or later the answer is usually obvious. But the cost of pursuit is > substantial; it would often be advantageous to concentrate on one as soon > as one is clearly superior to the others. > > I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic. > > Harald > > PS: The mail being responded to was addressed to the chair of the IETF in > his IETF role, and is thus a "contribution" under the terms of the NOTE > WELL statement you've all seen.