> That is wrong or at least a gross overstatement. If that's what you think, I invite you to make a list of all the IETF-standardized protocols and explain how they are all (or even more than 50% of them) needed to make the Internet work. > There have been many things that the IETF has chosen to step away from but > that ran and run over the Internet. Some graphics standards come > immediately to my mind ... Those graphics standards were kept out of the > IETF not because the working groups involved thought they didn't think > they were experts, but because the subject was out of scope for the IETF." I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I don't see why protocols for distributing graphics would be thought to fall outside the scope of the IETF, any more than protocols for distributing voice or video. Of course, graphics standards that have nothing do with distribution of the graphics over IP would be out of scope. > No committee is ever able to limit itself on grounds of insufficient > expertise. Now, there is a gross overstatement! For everyone who proclaims himself (rightly or wrongly) to be an expert on some topic, there are always two other people who claim that he is clueless. It's not uncommon for a WG to refuse to pick up a topic because the consensus is that the topic's proponents are clueless.