I understand. The flip side to this is that once a solution is implemented and deployed, there is lethargy to look at other solutions (or) to expand the problem space. Then, there is the legacy of this implementation that future solutions have to live with. Anyways, this is all the more why I believe, the protocol document should at a minimum cover the boundaries of its applicability. regards, suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Mike > O'Dell > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:47 PM > To: srisuresh@yahoo.com > Cc: Mike O'Dell; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2 > to Proposed Standard > > > actually, in the IETF, having running code for *one* solution is a good > way > to demonstrate how much of the problem is understood, and if some of > us had our way, it would be impossible to charter a Working Group > *without* the understanding of the problem space being *at least* that > good. > > cheers, > -mo > > "Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." > -Mark Twain >